Second Language

Learning
UNIT 4: ACTIVITY SEQUENCING IN THE EFL CLASSROOM
 Unit 4: Activity sequencing in the efl classroom

ÍNDICE
1. Activity Sequencing: conceptualization 3

2. Previous frameworks for activity sequencing: PPP 4

3. Cognitive-based approach to activity sequencing in EFL 6

4. Materials and activity sequencing 10

5. Bibliography 15

2
 Unit 4: Activity sequencing in the efl classroom

1. Activity Sequencing: conceptualization

The materialization of the foreign language or L2 curriculum is made through the

presentation of the contents, and more importantly, the type of activities and their
organization or sequencing. Sánchez (2004) indicates that sequences of activities (or activity
sequencing) display a relationship between the activities involves and the organizational
procedures in the class where these are implemented (Criado, 2008). Activity sequencing is
closely connected with the following curricular and cognitive areas:

1. The methodology followed by the textbook or the teacher and the sequencing
principles that it advocates or it is governed by.
2. The psychological sequence of actions carried out by all human beings and each
individual person in order to acquire and consolidate their knowledge.
3. The variety of teaching procedures, which should foster in some way the students'
motivation.
4. The degree of complexity that is encapsulated by the development of an activity.

These four areas are intimately related to all pedagogical aspects, revealing the pivotal
role held by sequencing and the effects it might have on language learning.

Apparently, the term sequence seems to refer to the order of acquisition of language
forms. However, in Foreign Language Teaching, sequencing is related to the pedagogical way
in which the learning content is arranged for the students (Criado, 2008). The learning
content may be located in two different settings: (1) the teaching 'what' or the subject
matter (e.g. structures, notions, functions, or communicative abilities); (2) activities as
teaching 'how' or the procedure by which the subject matter is offered to the learners.

Criado (2008) equally reviews several definitions for the term sequencing, and she
proposes her own definition: "The ordering or distribution of activities within a didactic
lesson or unit in a given foreign language teaching coursebook" (p. 14). As such, sequencing
involves the term activities as a central part of the teaching organization and hence the
course. An activity is regarded as the basic unit of classroom organization (Doyle, 1986), and
the unit of action in the classroom or teaching material, involving goals, contents and
strategies as an integrated construct (Criado, 2008, p. 15).

3
 Unit 4: Activity sequencing in the efl classroom

Similarly, there are scarcely any differences between activity and exercise. In the case of
tasks, these are a sequence of activities whose completion leads to the fulfilment of the goal
of such a task (íbidem).

It must not be forgotten that activities are generally associated with one or more skills.
According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, the term skill is defined as "the ability to use
one's knowledge effectively and readily in execution and performance". Another meaning is
"a learner power of doing something competently: a developed attitude or ability <language
skills>". The role of skills in activities, and in turn, activity sequencing is essential since L2
mastery consists of the skill of being able to produce and understand language quickly.
Additionally, these activities will be based upon the four traditional skills:

⮚ Receptive skills: listening and reading.

⮚ Productive skills: speaking and writing.

2. Previous frameworks for activity sequencing: PPP

Foreign language teaching materials have been traditionally governed by a traditional

sequencing farmework: P-P-P (Presentation-Practice-Production) pattern. Some have
regarded P-P-P as a teaching strategy present in the EFL style of teaching on a frequent basis
(Criado, 2013; Cook, 2008). P-P-P follows a pattern whereby students are presented with an
explanation, followed by the assmiliation of content with practice to ensure knowledge
consolidation, and final transference to our L2 competence. PPP is a teaching strategy which
has relied upon instruction based on focus-on-form over the importance of meaning-based
instruction fostering communicative use of the language (Lewis, 1996). The detailed
description of PPP is as follows:

● Presentation (P1) is the first phase of this teaching strategy, which is characterized by
the teacher’s control of the teaching-learning process and, then, by the explicit or
implicit introduction of linguistic concepts, structures and different items. In line with
this, textbooks offer two different views on the way of introducing such linguistic
components. In the first one, the teacher uses a determined structure or lexical

4
 Unit 4: Activity sequencing in the efl classroom

component in order to offer an explicit explanation. In the second case, the students
are in charge of the learning process itself by means of discovering the structures or
vocabulary through input, thus inducing the rules and/or meanings underlying such
linguistic items.
● Practice (P2) goes in line with the previous phase; the focus still lies within form.
Though references to the structure can be made, the teacher provides opportunities
for students to practise the items presented in P1 in a controlled manner. This phase
is of paramount importance as students need to acquire the targeted structure in a
flawless way, thus requiring corrective feedback on the teacher’s part. Restricted
activities such as fill-in-the-gaps exercises are of special relevance in this phase.
● Production (P3) entails the autonomous stage in the whole sequence. After the
student has correctly learnt how to use the segmental structure, the following step
involves increasing fluency via free use of the revised structures. A wide array of
activities can be proposed in this stage: role-plays, discussions, opinion essays,
amongst others.

Nevertheless, and despite its widespread use in the EFL classrooms all over the world, PPP
has received fierce criticism. For instance, PPP has been criticized because it does not reflect
the nature of language or the nature of learning. Additionally, the focus on form is also a
matter for contention given the necessity of emphasizing on meaning as well. Some
researchers have argued that PPP is extremely rigid owing to its structurally-based nature
and it is too linear since it does not account for the stages of developmental readiness. PPP
also assumes that the learning process gets to an end after the whole sequence.

Sánchez (2004, as cited in Criado, 2009) attempted to reassess the pedagogical value of
PPP by introducing slight changes, for instance, modifying and adding diverse phases to the
process.

5
 Unit 4: Activity sequencing in the efl classroom

3. Cognitive-based approach to activity sequencing in EFL

In light of the above, these attempts at reassessing the PPP model derived from adopting
a fully cognitive-based approach to activity sequencing. Among these cognitive approaches,
Skill Acquisition Theory (henceforth, SAT) provides a solid basis for the development of skills
from an initial stage to mastery (DeKeyser, 2007, 2014). It is a general theory from cognitive
psychology applicable to all complex skills, further applied to the SLA context (see Polio,
2012) In this vein, SAT allows for the understanding of learning any skill from a sequential
perspective, that is, the gradual acquisition of behavioral skills that are thought to be
ultimately automatized. In light of this, SAT brings to light "two interrelated representational
systems comprising declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge" (Lyster & Sato, 2013,
p. 71). Thus, advocators of SAT do understand L2 learning as a transition to a more
automatized use of the language itself together with the corresponding amount of
meaningful practice and feedback in all forms.

Before delving into a detailed description of SAT, it is necessary to define the

characteristics of declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge. Declarative knowledge
(also referred to as dec/DEC) implies knowing "what" since it is knowledge which can be
verbalized. Declarative knowledge is purely descriptive, and is used consciously. Much of this
declarative knowledge uses data stored in our long-term memory, and it is easily accessible
as long as we need it (Anderson, 1982). Regarding procedural knowledge (also pro/PRO), it
involves an action, and the data it resorts to is not stored consciously. Procedural knowledge
cannot be verbalized inasmuch as it does not depend on consciousness. Also, it is stored in
long-term memory as a product or procedure for action. Procedural knowledge entails
automatized sequences (e.g. when you hold a conversation about a topic you have already
discussed in the past), and it is easily accessible since storage size is reduced (Anderson,
1982).

It is common that declarative and procedural knowledge are futher associated with
explicit and implicit knowledge. Despite being similar, they do not fully express the same idea
or represent the same construct. Explicit knowledge is the type of knowledge L2 learners are
aware of, it is consciously accessible, and it is associated (not identical) with explicit learning

6
 Unit 4: Activity sequencing in the efl classroom

and declarative knowledge. Conversely, implicit knowledge is not accessible consciously, and
thus not verbalizable. It is associated with implicit learning and procedural knowledge.

Finally, implicit teaching involves L2 as a means of communication in which grammar or

metalinguistic explanations are fully or partially neglected. Thus, there is free use of L2 forms. On the
other hand, explicit teaching entails L2 as an object of study. Rules, explanations and metalinguistic
aspects are emphasized. There is an explicit presentation of contents and controlled practice of the
target form (Ellis, 2012; De Graaff & Housen, 2009).

As a result of these concepts, the interface debate emerged in SLA.

Figure 1. Summary of the interface debate in SLA.

One of the main tenets of SAT has been the dichotomous but inclusive view of declarative
and procedural knowledge. Such a conceptualization of the phases in learning a language
was depicted and developed by Anderson (1983, 1985, 1993) in his Adaptive Control of
Thought (ACT) which in further revisions (Anderson, 1993) added an R for Rational. Anderson
(1993) proposes two types of knowledge which are declarative knowledge (as referred to as
the knowledge of that) and procedural knowledge (as referred to knowledge of how), into
which the former may be transformed. As mentioned previously, Anderson’s model “is a
general model of skill acquisition” (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012, p. 13), which implies whatever
activity which may be learned and further automatized (e.g. when one learns how to ride a

7
 Unit 4: Activity sequencing in the efl classroom

bike, the first steps are always very explicit and rule-based, but once one gets accustomed to
riding it after considerable practice, the process becomes automatized). This explains why
Anderson’s model, while not strictly related to the field of SLA, may apply to several aspects
concerning L2 learning just as several researchers point out. Getting back to ACT, this model
sets the stage for a progression line leading declarative knowledge to procedural knowledge
through a three-stage path: declarative, procedural, and automatic. the progression between
one stage and the other would only happen through practice (DeKeyser, 1997). First, the
declarative stage underscores the theoretical and explicit description of the procedure to be
automatized. Second, the procedural stage involves turning declarative knowledge into
procedural knowledge. This proceduralisation stage occurs at a relatively fast pace. Finally,
the autonomous stage takes the learner a step forward by granting more rapid and
automatic access to the procedure while reducing the time to access it insofar as practice is
intensified. Nonetheless, as precisely indicated by DeKeyser (2015), empirical research has
shown that the automatization of the procedural stage results in a much slower process.
Such a stage implies “ranging from a mere speed-up of the same basic mechanisms to a
speed-up of a broader task through a qualitative change in its components” (DeKeyser, 2015,
p. 96).

8
 Unit 4: Activity sequencing in the efl classroom

Figure 2. Connection between cognitive stages (SAT & ACT-R), purpose, pedagogical action and P-P-P stage (adapted
from DeKeyser & Criado [2013] and Criado [2014]).

Figure 2 above describes in detail the different cognitive stages according to SAT and
ACT-R. The route provided acknowledges the presentation of the language aspect or form
(dec), followed by the assumed practice of such knowledge (DEC). Then, practice involving
more meaning-centered use of the form embedded in some context (pro), and the
automatization stage, which entails that the L2 user already knows such structure or form
(PRO).

Current trends in activity sequencing are solely focused on developing pro/PRO since they
are believed to be fully communicative, and thus enabling students to enhance their
receptive skills. PRO alone may entail a series of dangers (Criado, 2008). For instance,
naturalistic learners are likely to draw on language chunks in meaning rather than in
language structures (O'Malley et al., 1987). This might give the illusory impression of
effective communication. Nevertheless, such efficacy may be counterproductive in the long
term since the IL may become less apt to restructuring (Skehan, 1998). For instance,

9
 Unit 4: Activity sequencing in the efl classroom

fossilized structures learnt through PRO stages alone such as "Give to me a pint of beer"
would be modified into the correct structure "I'd like a pint of beer, please" in a more
difficult manner. This fossilization is a stage beyond which some L2 learners may fail to make
any further process. As a result, in a formal learning context, the remedial teaching action to
ensure that DEC follows PRO is the use of explicit didactic strategies. In an Early Childhood
Education context, and more importantly, in Primary Education, the use of DECPRO and
PRODEC are essential to prevent fossilization.

4. Materials and activity sequencing

Materials oriented toward young EFL learners – namely Early Childhood Education and
Primary Education – share a series of common properties (Perez & Roig, 2004; Read, 2007).
Scott and Ytreberg (1990) distinguish between those EFL materials for students aged 5 to 7
years old (Band 1), and students from 8 to 10 years old (Band 2). Among the characteristics
in Band 1 materials identified by Scott and Ytreberg (1990), we highlight some of them:

1. Metalinguistic information is neglected since very young EFL learners still do not have
sufficient cognitive skills.
2. The use of the four basic language skills: writing, speaking, listening and reading.
3. The activities are varied and spark very young EFL learners' interest by maintaining
their concentration.
4. The activities are challenging and rewarding for the L2 students. Games and
challenges have to be motivating.
5. Collaborative work and competition are fostered.
6. Interests and concerns are gathered by asking L2 students explicitly about what they
like, what they are doing or their experiences.
7. The activities help develop important cognitive skills through logical reasoning and
imagination.
8. Visual and linguistic elements are present (e.g. pictures).
9. Interaction between the teacher and the student is fostered in order to observe the
level of comprehension.

10
 Unit 4: Activity sequencing in the efl classroom

As regards activities in Band 2 (i.e. for 8 to 10 year olds), they have the following
characteristics:

1. They introduce basic metalinguistic concepts and brief explanations about the forms
in order to facilitate inferring linguistic aspects which are not salient in the input.
2. They provide extra information about the L2 to generate more interest on the part of
more advanced L2 students.
3. They encourage learners to use the L2 (e.g. by asking questions).
4. They do not overuse visual or aural cues in order to transmit or reveal the meaning of
texts or recordings.
5. They raise awareness about the forms of the L2 through language manipulation with
games.
6. They foster cooperative learning and competition between students.
7. They are more varied in terms of the typology of activities given the cognitive
maturity of L2 students.

Figure 3 below is an extract from a Primary 1 Book (Nixon and Tomlison, 2022). As can be
observed, students have a lot of visual cues since this is directed toward six-year-old L2
learners. The first activity (Read and circle the food words. Then number the pictures) is a
focused skill activity in which the written text is used as a pretext for the study of language.
In this case, exercise four acts as a pre-writing activity (that is, DEC) since it shows young EFL
learners how a recipe should be written. Below, the mission Stage 3 exercise is a production
exercise, and thus framed in the pro stage. L2 students are encouraged to write their own
recipes and share them with the rest of their classmates.

11
 Unit 4: Activity sequencing in the efl classroom

Figure 3. Sample writing activities from a Primary 1 Book.

Figure 4 shows a sample page of a CLIL-based textbook for Social Sciences in Primary 1st.
This type of textbooks are commonly used in Bilingual Programs at Spanish schools. Despite
not being equal to a traditional EFL textbook, they still share a few characteristics in terms of
presentation of contents. Similarly, we can also find parallelisms with the stages as depicted
in the ACT-R / SAT models. In this case, through visual cues, the very young EFL learner (5-6
year old) is presented with varied input regarding stars and planets. It combines drawing
with the vocabulary of science whilst providing, at the same time, information about the sun
and where it lies in the solar system.

12
 Unit 4: Activity sequencing in the efl classroom

Figure 4. Sample page of a CLIL unit.

Additionally, in Figure 5, we have another example in the same textbook. In that case,
there is an exercise which combines the knowledge about the sun and it recycles previous
vocabulary seen in the EFL subject. This way, we can observe a pro stage since the learner is
given the opportunity to choose from a number of options. In the second exercise, PRO stage
comes on the scene since the very young EFL learner is allowed to write basing their choice
on their own experience and opinion, thus involving a free activity.

13
 Unit 4: Activity sequencing in the efl classroom

Figure 5. Sample page from a unit in a CLIL-based Social Science textbook.

14
 Unit 4: Activity sequencing in the efl classroom

5. Bibliography

Real Decreto 1105/2014, de 26 de diciembre, por el que se establece el currículo básico

de la Educación Secundaria Obligatoria y del Bachillerato.

Orden ECD/65/2015, de 21 de enero, por la que se describen las relaciones entre las
competencias, los contenidos y los criterios de evaluación de la educación primaria, la
educación secundaria obligatoria y el bachillerato

Decreto 48/2015, de 14 de mayo, del Consejo de Gobierno, por el que se establece para la
Comunidad de Madrid el currículo de la Educación Secundaria Obligatoria.

Decreto 52/2015, de 21 de mayo, del Consejo de Gobierno, por el que se establece para la
Comunidad de Madrid el currículo del Bachillerato.

Council of Europe. (2001) The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Martínez Mut, B. (2001) De la enseñanza al aprendizaje. Los estilos individuales. Alicante,

Publicaciones de la CAM.

Criado, R. (2008). Activity Sequencing in Foreign Language Teaching: Psychological and

Pedagogic Considerations in Late 19th Century and 21st Century Materials. In R. Monroy & A.
Sánchez (Eds.), 25 años de Lingüística Aplicada en España: Hitos y Retos. / 25 years of
Applied Linguistics in Spain: Milestones and Challenges (pp. 309-320). Murcia: Editum.
Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Murcia.

Sánchez, A. (2004). Enseñanza y aprendizaje en la clase de idiomas. Madrid: SGEL.

Criado, R. (2013). A critical review of the presentation-practice-production model (PPP) in

foreign language teaching. Homenaje a francisco gutiérrez díez, 97-115.

Lewis, M. (1996). Implications of a lexical view of language. In D. Willis & J. Willis

(Eds.), Challenge and Change in Language Teaching (pp. 10-16). Oxford: Heinemann.

15
 Unit 4: Activity sequencing in the efl classroom

DeKeyser, R. M. (2007). Introduction: Situating the concept of practice. In R. M. DeKeyser

(Ed.), Practice in a Second Language. Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive
Psychology (pp. 1-18).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lyster, R., Sato, M., García Mayo, M. P., Gutierrez-Mangado, J., & Martínez Adrián, M.
(2013). Skill acquisition theory and the role of practice in L2 development. Multiple
perspectives on second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error
correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 375-389

Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of Cognitive Skill. Psychological Review, 89(4), 369-406.

Ellis, R. (2012). Language Teaching Research & Language Pedagogy. Malden, MA: John
Wiley & Sons Inc.

De Graaff, R., & Housen, A. (2009). 38 Investigating the Effects and Effectiveness of L2
Instruction. The handbook of language teaching, 726.

Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D., (2012) Written Corrective Feedback in Second Language
Acquisition and Writing. Routledge.

DeKeyser, R. M. (2015). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (eds),

Theories in Second Language Acquisition (2nd Ed.). Routledge, pp. 92–112.

O'Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., & Walker, C. (1987). Some applications of cognitive theory
to second language acquisition. Studies in second language acquisition, 9(3), 287-306.

Pérez Esteve, P., & Roig Estruch, V. (2004). Enseñar y aprender inglés en educación infantil
y primaria. Barcelona: ICE, Universitat de Barcelona, 2004.

Read, J. (2007). Second language vocabulary assessment: Current practices and new
directions. International Journal of English Studies, 7(2), 105-126.

Scott, W. A., & Ytreberg, L. H. (1990). Teaching English.

Nixon, C., & Tomlinson, M. (2022). Pippa and Pop Level 2 Pupil's Book with Digital Pack
British: Pupil's Book with Digital Pack. Level 2. Cambridge University Press.

16
 Unit 4: Activity sequencing in the efl classroom

LOE 2/2006. (de 3 de mayo). España. Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de mayo, de Educación.
[Internet] Boletín Oficial del Estado.

Ley Orgánica 8/2013, de 9 de diciembre, para la mejora de la calidad educativa (LOMCE)

17