Practice And Automatization In Second Language

Research Perspectives From Skill Acquisition

Theory And Cognitive Psychology 1st Edition
Suzuki download
https://ebookbell.com/product/practice-and-automatization-in-
second-language-research-perspectives-from-skill-acquisition-
theory-and-cognitive-psychology-1st-edition-suzuki-55739320

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

Practice And Prestige An Exploration Of Neolithic Warfare Bell Beaker

Archery And Social Stratification From An Anthropological Perspective
Jessica Ryandespraz

https://ebookbell.com/product/practice-and-prestige-an-exploration-of-
neolithic-warfare-bell-beaker-archery-and-social-stratification-from-
an-anthropological-perspective-jessica-ryandespraz-50202368

Practice And Procedure In Civil Matters In The Courts Of Records In

Anglophone Cameroon 1st Edition A Yanou

https://ebookbell.com/product/practice-and-procedure-in-civil-matters-
in-the-courts-of-records-in-anglophone-cameroon-1st-edition-a-
yanou-51334336

Practice And Theory For Materials Development In L2 Learning 1st

Edition Hitomi Masuhara Freda Mishan Brian Tomlinson

https://ebookbell.com/product/practice-and-theory-for-materials-
development-in-l2-learning-1st-edition-hitomi-masuhara-freda-mishan-
brian-tomlinson-51605326

Practice And Reemergence Of Herbal Medicine Raja Chakraborty

https://ebookbell.com/product/practice-and-reemergence-of-herbal-
medicine-raja-chakraborty-51874454
Practice And Theory Of Probation And Parole David Dressler

https://ebookbell.com/product/practice-and-theory-of-probation-and-
parole-david-dressler-51906718

Practice And The Human Sciences The Case For A Judgmentbased Practice
Of Care S U N Y Series In The Philosophy Of The Social Sciences Donald
E Polkinghorne

https://ebookbell.com/product/practice-and-the-human-sciences-the-
case-for-a-judgmentbased-practice-of-care-s-u-n-y-series-in-the-
philosophy-of-the-social-sciences-donald-e-polkinghorne-2204574

Practice And Procedure Of Parliament With Particular Reference To The

Lok Sabha 7th Mn Kaul Sl Shakdher

https://ebookbell.com/product/practice-and-procedure-of-parliament-
with-particular-reference-to-the-lok-sabha-7th-mn-kaul-sl-
shakdher-22987422

Practice And Policies Of Modern Peace Support Operations Under

International Law International And Comparative Criminal Law Knoops

https://ebookbell.com/product/practice-and-policies-of-modern-peace-
support-operations-under-international-law-international-and-
comparative-criminal-law-knoops-2374476

Practice And Procedure Of Parliament Kaul Mn Shakdher Sl Edited By P D

T Achary For The Lok Sabha Secretariat

https://ebookbell.com/product/practice-and-procedure-of-parliament-
kaul-mn-shakdher-sl-edited-by-p-d-t-achary-for-the-lok-sabha-
secretariat-2633348
PRACTICE AND AUTOMATIZATION
IN SECOND LANGUAGE RESEARCH

Practice is a recurring and popular theme in language education. However,

the concepts of practice and automatization have recently received renewed
theoretical and practical interest and are increasingly being explored from the
skill acquisition theory and cognitive psychology perspectives.
In this volume, leading scholars discuss the optimal types, amounts, and
schedules of practice for specific language structures and skills, as well as for
various types of learners and learning contexts, to facilitate second language
development. They illuminate how practice is instantiated for specific
groups of teachers and learners in diverse institutionalized contexts, such as
foreign language curriculum development, intelligent computer-assisted
language learning systems, task-based language teaching, and study abroad.
Furthermore, original methodological syntheses of extant research on practice
and automatization are presented, along with guides for conducting empirical
research on these topics.
Practice and Automatization in Second Language Research: Perspectives from Skill
Acquisition Theory and Cognitive Psychology is a valuable resource and reference
for graduate students and researchers in the field of SLA and applied linguistics.

Yuichi Suzuki is Associate Professor in the Faculty of Cross-Cultural and

Japanese Studies at Kanagawa University, Japan.
Second Language Acquisition Research Series
Susan M. Gass and Alison Mackey, Series Editors
Kimberly L. Geeslin, Associate Editor

The Second Language Acquisition Research Series presents and explores issues
bearing directly on theory construction and/or research methods in the study
of second language acquisition. Its titles (both authored and edited volumes)
provide thorough and timely overviews of high-interest topics and include
key discussions of existing research findings and their implications. A special
emphasis of the series is reflected in the volumes dealing with specific data
collection methods or instruments. Each of these volumes addresses the kinds
of research questions for which the method/instrument is best suited, offers
extended description of its use, and outlines the problems associated with its use.
The volumes in this series will be invaluable to students and scholars alike, and
perfect for use in courses on research methodology and in individual research.

Second Language Acquisition and Lifelong Learning

Simone E. Pfenninger, Julia Festman, and David Singleton

The Role of the Learner in Task-Based Language Teaching

Theory and Research
Edited by Craig Lambert, Scott Aubrey, and Gavin Bui

Practice and Automatization in Second Language Research

Perspectives from Skill Acquisition Theory and Cognitive Psychology
Edited by Yuichi Suzuki

For more information about this series, please visit: www.routle​d ge.com/Sec​ond-Langu​a ge-
Acqu ​isit ​ion-Resea ​rch-Ser ​ies/book-ser ​ies/LEASL​A RS
PRACTICE AND
AUTOMATIZATION IN
SECOND LANGUAGE
RESEARCH
Perspectives from Skill Acquisition
Theory and Cognitive Psychology

Edited by Yuichi Suzuki

Designed cover image: Getty Images | kyoshino
First published 2024
by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
and by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2024 selection and editorial matter, Yuichi Suzuki; individual chapters, the contributors
The right of Yuichi Suzuki to be identified as the author of the editorial material,
and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with
sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised
in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or
hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks,
and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
ISBN: 978-1-032-53990-4 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-367-64439-0 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-41464-3 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003414643
Typeset in Bembo
by Newgen Publishing UK
CONTENTS

List of Contributors vii

Acknowledgements ix

1 
Introduction: Practice and Automatization in a
Second Language 1
Yuichi Suzuki

PART I
Foundations 37

2 
Optimizing Input and Intake Processing: A Role for
Practice and Explicit Learning 39
Yuichi Suzuki, Tatsuya Nakata, and John Rogers

3 
Skill Learning Theories and Language Teaching:
Different Strokes for Different Folks 63
Masatoshi Sato

PART II
Teaching Approaches and Contexts 87

4 
Situating Practice in a Limited-Exposure, Foreign
Languages School Curriculum 89
Emma Marsden and Rachel Hawkes
vi Contents

5 
Supporting Individualized Practice through
Intelligent CALL 119
Simón Ruiz, Patrick Rebuschat, and Detmar Meurers

6 
Practice in Task-Based Language Teaching 144
Craig Lambert

7 
Practice in Study Abroad Contexts 160
Kevin McManus

PART III
Methodological Synthesis 179

8 
A Synthesis of L2 Practice Research: What Is “Practice”
and How Has It Been Investigated? 181
Ryo Maie and Aline Godfroid

9 
Measuring Automaticity in Second Language
Comprehension: A Methodological Synthesis of
Experimental Tasks over Three Decades (1990–2021) 206
Yuichi Suzuki and Irina Elgort

10 
Measuring Speaking and Writing Fluency: A
Methodological Synthesis Focusing on Automaticity 235
Shungo Suzuki and Andrea Révész

11 
Conclusion: Future Directions of Practice and
Automatization Research 265
Yuichi Suzuki

Index 283
CONTRIBUTORS

Irina Elgort is Associate Professor of Higher Education at Victoria University of

Wellington, New Zealand, and co-editor of Cross-language Influences in Bilingual
Processing and Second Language Acquisition (2023) by John Benjamins.

Aline Godfroid is Associate Professor of Second Language Studies and TESOL

at Michigan State University, USA, and the editor of Language Learning.

Rachel Hawkes is Director of International Education and Research at the CAM

Academy Trust Cambridge, UK, and Co-Director NCELP (National Centre
for Excellence for Language Pedagogy, then Language-Driven Pedagogy).

Craig Lambert is Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics in the School of

Education at Curtin University in Perth, Australia.

Ryo Maie is Project Assistant Professor in School of Engineering at the

University of Tokyo, Japan.

Emma Marsden is Professor in the Department of Education at the University

of York, UK, former editor of Language Learning (2015–2022), and director of
the National Centre for Excellence for Language Pedagogy (2018–2023, then
Language-Driven Pedagogy), IRIS (since 2011), and OASIS (since 2017).

Kevin McManus is Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics and Director of

the Center for Language Acquisition at Penn State University, USA, and an
associate editor of Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
viii List of Contributors

Detmar Meurers is Professor of Computational Linguistics at the University

of Tübingen, Germany, and head of the ICALL Research Group (http://icall-
resea​rch.de).

Tatsuya Nakata is Professor in College of Intercultural Communication,

Rikkyo University, Japan, and co-editor of a special issue in The Modern
Language Journal (2019).

Patrick Rebuschat is Professor of Linguistics and Cognitive Science at Lancaster

University, UK, and Distinguished International Professor at the University of
Tübingen, Germany.

Andrea Révész is Professor of Second Language Acquisition at the IoE,

University College London, UK, and an associate editor of Studies in Second
Language Acquisition.

John Rogers is Assistant Professor in the Department of English and

Communication at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

Simón Ruiz is an associated researcher at the University of Tübingen, Germany.

Masatoshi Sato is Professor at Universidad Andrés Bello, Chile, and the editor
of Language Awareness.

Shungo Suzuki is Assistant Research Professor in the Perceptual Computing

Laboratory at Waseda University, Japan, and Principal Investigator of the
project “Development of Online Language Learning Assistant AI System that
Grows with Humans,” funded by New Energy and Industrial Technology
Development Organization (NEDO).

Yuichi Suzuki is Associate Professor in the Faculty of Cross-Cultural and

Japanese Studies at Kanagawa University, Japan, and co-editor of a special issue
in The Modern Language Journal (2019).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my utmost gratitude to the inspiring work of all the
contributors and their commitment to this collective volume on practice and
automatization. Their shared interest and enthusiasm have brought this project
to fruition and advanced the research program to the next level.
The idea of this volume was shaped by many conversations and collaborations
over the years. First and foremost, this book would not have existed without
the unwavering support of my mentor, Robert DeKeyser, during and after my
PhD training at the University of Maryland College Park. His groundbreaking
work has provided the foundations for many of the key topics discussed in this
volume. This book is dedicated to you.
I would also like to express my gratitude to Tatsuya Nakata for co-editing
a special issue of The Modern Language Journal (Suzuki, Nakata, & DeKeyser,
2019), which provided an impetus for empirical work of practice in second
language. I am grateful to Emma Marsden for co-organizing a colloquium
on this volume’s topic at EuroSLA 30 (2021), which opened my eyes to real-
world issues in the UK and prompted me to reflect on the situation in English
education in Japan.
Many colleagues generously read my earlier drafts of the introduction
and epilogue and provided valuable feedback that has helped articulate
the theoretical framework presented in this volume: Frank Boers, Robert
DeKeyser, Keiko Hanzawa, Craig Lambert, Patsy Lightbown, Ryo Maie,
Emma Marsden, and Kevin McManus. My sincere appreciation also goes to
all the anonymous external reviewers and contributing authors who lent their
expertise and provided their constructive suggestions to improve the quality of
all the chapters.
newgenprepdf

x Acknowledgements

I am also indebted to my mentors and colleagues at Tokyo Gakugei

University, where I started my research career: Ken Kanatani, Misato Usukura,
and Etsuko Ota. Through working with them over the last decade, I have
come to appreciate many different realities of language classrooms across Japan,
which influenced the concept of practice presented here and prompted me to
consider the nexus between research and praxis.
This volume was completed during my sabbatical at the University of
Hawaiʻi at Mānoa. It was a great pleasure to work with wonderful colleagues
and graduate students. I would like to express my special gratitude to Theres
Grüter for hosting me and having our regular research meetings with Hajime
Ono. I would also like to thank Dustin Crowther and Dan Isbell for broadening
my understandings of SLA and language testing through lively discussions with
other graduate students. My sincere gratitude also goes to all those at my home
institution who have made this sabbatical possible. I am particularly indebted
to Eton Churchill for his generous support for my transition to the sabbatical.
I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the series
editors (Susan Gass, Alison Mackey, and Kimberly Geeslin) for their continued
support and encouragement as I worked on this project. I would also like to
acknowledge the Routledge editorial team: Ze’eve Sudry, for encouraging me
to start this project, and Amy Laurens and Bex Hume, for their efficient and
professional editorial assistance.
Finally, I gratefully acknowledge the financial support of Japan Society
through the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI) for the
Promotion of Science No. 21H00550.
1
INTRODUCTION
Practice and Automatization in a Second
Language

Yuichi Suzuki

Introduction
The old adage “practice makes perfect” applies to a wide range of skills.
A large amount of time and effort are typically required to attain high-level
skills in sports, music, art, and formal education. Practice is undeniably
a recurring popular theme in the history of applied linguistics (e.g., Boers,
2021; DeKeyser, 2007; Fries, 1945; Johnson, 1996; Jones, 2018; Lado, 1964;
Levelt, 1978; Lightbown, 2019; Lyster & Sato, 2013; McLaughlin, Rossman,
& McLeod, 1983; Paulston, 1970; Segalowitz & Hulstijn, 2005; Stevick, 1986;
Suzuki, Nakata, & DeKeyser, 2019b; Ur, 2016). However, “practice” has
been mistrusted. Lightbown (1985) rightfully pointed out that “practice does
not make perfect” because “practice” in the sense of mechanical drills (often
associated with audiolingualism) cannot equip a learner with communication
skills. In order to rectify the unfortunate association between practice and
mindless drills, DeKeyser (2007) proposed a definition of practice that is more
compatible with research in applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. He
defined practice as “specific activities in the second language, engaged in
systematically, deliberately, with the goal of developing knowledge of and skills
in the second language” (p. 1). This conceptualization of practice in the 21st
century is broader than mechanical drills and pattern practice but narrower than
merely receiving comprehensible input and using language for communication,
opening up many interpretations from different theoretical positions. Thus, a
theoretical and practical consideration and discussion is warranted regarding
what practice means and how second language (L2) learning can be optimized,
which aligns with an overarching goal of instructed second language acquisition

DOI: 10.4324/9781003414643-1
2 Yuichi Suzuki

(SLA) research (Loewen & Sato, 2017). With this conceptualization of practice,
researchers and teachers all agree that practice is a viable way to improve L2
skills; the real question is what kind of practice—including how much, for
whom, for which language structure and skill, and in what context—is essential
and facilitative for L2 learning. This volume aims to address this central issue
by updating and extending the concept of practice with the hope of advancing
this research program in applied linguistics and SLA.
While practice is an old concept, even more obsolete is a coupling of
“practice and automatization,” to which the current volume aims to bring
a fresh perspective. As already clarified, “practice and automatization” is not
mechanical drilling for achieving automatic response to formal cues. Although
automatization is characterized as the gradual improvement of practiced skills, it
is not a simple linear progression from non-automatic (controlled) to automatic
language processing. Automatization entails restructuring, expanding, and fine-
tuning different types of linguistic knowledge. Understanding how different
types of practice bring about these qualitative changes in automatization is a
critical component in L2 learning because automatic language processing is the
foundation for fluent production and comprehension skills (DeKeyser, 2001;
Segalowitz, 2010; Segalowitz & Hulstijn, 2005).
Given the fundamental role of automaticity in a set of complex L2 skills,
the last decade has witnessed renewed attention to automaticity from a skill
acquisition theory perspective (DeKeyser, 2020). Automaticity refers to
the capacity to perform behaviors smoothly and efficiently, expending little
mental effort. It has been a major subject of cognitive psychology research as it
applies to various daily activities and routines such as typing, walking, driving,
gaming, reading, solving math problems, and so on (e.g., see Moors, 2016 for
a review). In a view of L2 learning as cognitive skill acquisition, there have
been recent conceptual and methodological advancements in L2 research on
automaticity and automatization (Elgort & Warren, 2014; Hui, 2020; Hui &
Godfroid, 2021; Hulstijn et al., 2009; Lim & Godfroid, 2015; McManus &
Marsden, 2019; Suzuki & Sunada, 2018). This volume aims to refine the scope
of research on automatization and synthesize literature on the experimental
tasks and measurements of automaticity in SLA.
The theorizing of practice and automatization has come of age. Updating
these often-linked concepts will contribute to a deeper understanding of core
issues in SLA and applied linguistics. This introductory chapter aims to achieve
three objectives. First, I update the concepts of practice and automatization from
a skill acquisition theory perspective. Second, I offer five principles of effective
practice, derived from cognitive psychology theories, that are interpreted for
different contexts/teaching approaches. Finally, an overview of this edited
volume is provided, explaining how each chapter contributes unique insights
to the evolving concepts of L2 practice and automatization.
 Introduction 3

Updating “Practice” and “Automatization”

On Practice: Cognitive/Educational Psychology and SLA

Practice is a long-standing theme in the applied linguistics and SLA literature.
From the 1940s to the early 1970s, audiolingualism influenced how practice
was defined as drills for forming automatic habits through mimicry and
memorization of structural patterns and dialogues (e.g., Fries, 1945; Lado, 1964).
In order to overcome the limitations of mechanical drills, explicit grammar
explanation and a more systematic use of drills, including communicative
drills, expanded the notion of practice with a goal of producing new utterances
creatively (e.g., Paulston, 1970; Stevick, 1986). When communicative language
teaching gradually gained traction in the late 1970s and 1980s (e.g., Howatt,
2004), the importance of practice was overshadowed by simplistic and negative
“strawman” descriptions of audiolingualism such as “drill and kill,” “mindless
parroting,” “stimulus-response” activities—often for the sake of promoting
newer language teaching approaches (see Castagnaro, 2006; Mayne, 2022, for
detailed historical documentation). Nevertheless, an information processing
model in cognitive psychology has offered an alternative view of L2 practice
as a form of complex skill acquisition through repeated performance for
flexibly orchestrating automatic, as well as controlled, L2 skills (e.g., Johnson,
1996; Levelt, 1978; McLaughlin et al., 1983). In the 21st century, research
advancements have further extended and refined our theoretical and practical
understanding of the roles of practice in acquiring different knowledge and
skills by different types of learners under diverse contexts (e.g., Boers, 2021;
DeKeyser, 2007; Jones, 2018; Lyster & Sato, 2013; Ur, 2016; Segalowitz &
Hulstijn, 2005; Suzuki et al., 2019b).
I begin the discussion about practice in applied linguistics and SLA research
with DeKeyser’s (2007) edited volume because it provided the contemporary
definition of practice. DeKeyser (2007) redefined the concept of practice
as “deliberate” and “systematic.” In his volume, prominent L2 researchers
expressed their views on what constitutes effective L2 practice from different
theoretical angles such as input, interaction, output, and feedback, as well as
how practice activities can be individualized based on learner-related factors
such as age, proficiency, prior level of knowledge, and cognitive aptitudes (see
individual chapters in DeKeyser, 2007, for details). Leow (2007) endorsed the
role of attention deliberately directed to the linguistic rules underlying exemplars
during input-processing practice such as structured-input and problem-
solving activities. Muranoi (2007) argued that output practice such as text
reconstruction activities and task planning can trigger cognitive processes, such
as noticing and conscious reflection, that facilitate L2 learning. Ortega (2007),
advocating meaningful task-based interactive activities in foreign language
4 Yuichi Suzuki

classrooms, described optimum practice as “interactive, truly meaningful, and

with a built-in focus on selective aspects of the language code that are integral
to the very nature of that practice” (p. 182). Although the role of practice has
been sparsely featured in input-rich classrooms such as immersion and content-
based language teaching classrooms, Ranta and Lyster (2007) illuminated the
importance of systematic output and feedback practice in Canadian immersion
programs. More broadly, DeKeyser (2007) argued that a study abroad context
is the ultimate opportunity for practice. In principle, study abroad programs
can provide more extensive opportunities for input, interaction, and output
practice than foreign language classrooms. To capitalize on the advantages of
that environment, DeKeyser opined that L2 learners participating in study
abroad need to possess functional-level knowledge so that they can engage in
practice effectively in socially rich communicative environments.
Since DeKeyser (2007) set a research agenda for L2 practice, a significant
number of empirical studies, as well as another edited volume ( Jones, 2018)
and a special issue (Suzuki et al., 2019b), have been published. In particular,
L2 researchers show growing interest in investigating L2 practice by applying
findings from a strand of contemporary cognitive/educational psychology
or “science of learning” (Horvath et al., 2016). Insights from cognitive
psychology research are used by SLA researchers to better understand how
language is learned, processed, remembered, and used (Lightbown, 2008,
2019); the interface of cognitive psychology and SLA research generates key
issues for L2 researchers, including identifying optimal timing of practice, the
relevance of explicit instruction, the role of feedback for different stages of
learning, the necessity of deliberate (intentional) guided practice for successful
learning, and individualization of instruction for different types of learners
and different components of language knowledge as well as different types
of skills. These issues are particularly relevant to many instructed settings
where only limited classroom hours and few opportunities to use L2 outside
the classroom are available (see Marsden & Hawkes, this volume). Under
such circumstances, deliberate and systematic practice is one viable way of
maximizing L2 classroom learning. Given the advancement of the research
agendas, the time is ripe for updating and expanding the scope of inquiry to
stimulate further research (for a state-of-the-art review, see the “Principles of
Effective Practice” section).
While the praxis of practice varies considerably in different contexts (e.g.,
foreign language classrooms, bilingual immersion programs, and study abroad),
a major contribution of discussion surrounding “practice” is elucidating
the beneficial roles of various (largely conscious) cognitive mechanisms
in SLA (Leow, 2015). Researchers in this current volume elaborate on
cognitive underpinnings for optimal practice such as raising awareness, using
metalinguistic rules, noticing, hypothesis testing, monitoring, and reflection
 Introduction 5

(see Suzuki et al., this volume). These explicit learning processes are studied
in relation to automatization during skill acquisition in cognitive psychology
and SLA research. Hence, automaticity (i.e., the result of the process of
automatization) is a characteristic of practiced, efficient skills and of relevance
to the central theme of this volume. The literature on these topics will be
reviewed next.

On Automatization and Automaticity

Acquisition of skills is a major goal of L2 learning. In SLA, skilled performance is
often analyzed in terms of complexity, accuracy, and fluency (Housen & Kuiken,
2009). In particular, fluency in both comprehension and production skills is
often linked to the concept of automaticity (cf., cognitive fluency: Segalowitz,
2010). Automaticity is characterized as fast, efficient, stable, effortless, ballistic,
and unconscious (Moors, 2016; Moors & De Houwer, 2006). These behavioral
signatures are not all-or-nothing phenomena. L2 learners show different
levels of automaticity in many layers of language processing (e.g., decoding,
phonological, lexical, morphological, syntactic processing); at any of these
different levels, slow, inefficient, unstable, effortful, controlled, and conscious
processing impedes accurate and fluent comprehension and production skills
(Suzuki & Elgort, this volume). Furthermore, higher automaticity in lexical
and grammatical processing can be the foundation for learning by reading,
listening, writing, and speaking (e.g., Elgort & Warren, 2014; Hanzawa &
Suzuki, in press; Segalowitz & Freed, 2004). Hence, establishing automatic
language processing is a critical step for becoming a skilled L2 user;
understanding automatization—extended and gradual learning processes that
lead to automaticity—is important.
Because automatization is underpinned by multiple knowledge
representations, there is more than one route to automaticity (Ashby & Crossley,
2012). With this premise, there are many important issues that need to be
investigated regarding automatization of knowledge and skill through practice
(DeKeyser, 2001; Segalowitz, 2003; Segalowitz & Hulstijn, 2005): what the
optimal practice activities are for different language areas (e.g., pronunciation,
vocabulary, grammar, pragmatics) and for different skills (e.g., comprehension
vs. production, accuracy–fluency–complexity development); how different
kinds of knowledge (declarative vs. procedural; explicit vs. implicit) develop
and facilitate automatization in different learning environments; how
practice influences the way existing knowledge (e.g., declarative and explicit
knowledge) is retrieved and how it facilitates restructuring and fine-tuning of
novel, more efficient knowledge representations (e.g., procedural and implicit
knowledge); how much (repeated) practice is needed for automatizing the use
of exemplars and rules; how the developmental trajectory differs for different
6 Yuichi Suzuki

linguistic structures and skills; and the extent to which automatization in one
skill contributes to L2 development in other skills.
There are two influential psychological perspectives on L2 learning: skill
acquisition theory (DeKeyser, 2020) and usage-based approaches (Ellis & Wulff,
2020). In both theories, language is acquired and used through the domain-
general cognitive architecture for the acquisition and use of other kinds of
knowledge and skills, such as learning about historical facts, how to solve
mathematical problems, and how to play sports. According to skill acquisition
theory (DeKeyser, 2020), domain-general long-term memory systems—
declarative and procedural—underpin automatization. Declarative knowledge
refers to knowing about something (i.e., object of thought), while procedural
knowledge is tied to execution of skills. It is relatively easy for L2 learners to
accumulate declarative knowledge of exemplars (e.g., single words, formulaic
sequences, sentences) and rules (e.g., word-order rule, case systems, agreement
systems). For instance, they can consciously commit language into declarative
memory through perusal of L2 materials, teachers’ explanations, reading and
listening from input materials, etc. However, next comes the trickiest part,
proceduralization, i.e., creating a procedural knowledge representation for
performing a specific mental action by drawing on declarative knowledge.
There are two major contexts of proceduralization (Sato, this volume). In an
ideal situation, learners access the relevant declarative knowledge for using
the desired target skills (e.g., reading, listening, writing, and speaking) to
comprehend and express meaning that is relevant for them. Hence, in order to
achieve the desired automatization, contextualized practice involving use of the
target skill for meaning making in a specific context is important even in early
stages of proceduralization (Lightbown, 2019; Lyster & Sato, 2013). In contrast,
when they only practice form-meaning mapping in a constricting drill (e.g.,
fill-in-the-blanks), they acquire procedural knowledge merely for such L2 use
(e.g., quickly retrieving memorized vocabulary and rules for certain cues on a
paper-and-pencil test). This latter case is the pitfall of proceduralization; the
same kind of subsequent practice only leads to automatization of narrow skills
that apply to limited contexts with little relevance to real-life language use.
Therefore, a closer inspection of the exact content of procedural knowledge
is warranted in L2 learning. This content can have various levels of granularity,
from items/exemplars (e.g., sounds, spellings, words, phrases, collocations,
formulaic sequences, idioms) to more abstract syntactic rules; hence, learning
processes presumably differ for exemplars and rules (e.g., Boers, 2021; DeKeyser,
2001, 2007). While acquiring declarative knowledge of many exemplars (e.g.,
frequent multi-word sequences) is certainly useful, such declarative content
also needs to be seamlessly integrated with communicative intent, i.e., creating
procedural knowledge. Procedural knowledge is (re)structured efficiently when
a language form such as “I was wondering if…” is combined with specific
 Introduction 7

functions in specific contexts (e.g., asking a polite question in an email, making

a polite request at service encounter). Furthermore, proceduralization of abstract
rules (e.g., word-order rules assigning grammatical functions such as subject and
object) is also important for broad, novel, and creative L2 use, because syntactic
rules with varied exemplars are called upon for a range of contexts (DeKeyser,
2001). Thus, what is needed for successful L2 use in various contexts is not just
making fluent use of exemplars but also automatization of relevant rules that
express intended meaning and are applicable to many utterances in various
contexts.
What, then, are the optimal practice conditions that are conducive to
automatization of rules? Based on skill acquisition theory, automatization is
the fine-tuning of procedural knowledge (e.g., leading to faster, more stable
and efficient skill using). Because proceduralization presupposes declarative
knowledge, automatization (in the broadest sense of learning trajectory) is
guided by declarative knowledge at the very beginning. In laboratory research,
McManus and Marsden (2019) trained French L2 learners on imparfait verbal
morphology in comprehension practice (i.e., connecting forms to meanings),
involving 552 exemplars over four training sessions across three weeks (3.5
hours). They found that carefully applying declarative knowledge (derived
from explicit information about the target structure in both L1 and L2) was
instrumental in automatization (evidenced by faster RT and smaller coefficients
of variance). McManus’ (2019) subsequent research further revealed that
learners who received explicit information about L1 and L2 gradually relied less
on rule-based declarative knowledge and focused more on relevant L2/L1–L2
form–function mapping (as opposed to direct L1 translation of the imparfait
verbal morphology), after they engaged in extensive comprehension practice.
In classroom research, Sato and McDonough (2019) documented incipient
automatization of oral production skills. Over five weekly sessions, L2 classroom
learners engaged in three output practice activities (e.g., spot-the-difference
task, interview) that naturally and frequently elicited the use of wh-questions at
either the beginning or end of each regular class (15 minutes for each session).
Analyses of speech during the practice activities showed that prior declarative
knowledge about how to construct wh-questions assisted the learners in using
the target structure accurately and fluently (evidenced by faster speech rate and
fewer pauses). Interestingly, the role of declarative knowledge was significant
only in the first training session and no longer relevant in the fifth (final)
training session.
Taken together, these findings suggest that pedagogical rules work as a
declarative crutch and initially assist in engaging in rule-guided comprehension
and production skills. After extensive practice, those skills can be executed more
automatically without relying on the declarative crutch. This interpretation is
also consistent with a neuroscience model of automaticity (e.g., Kovacs & Ashby,
8 Yuichi Suzuki

2022) and Ullman’s neurobiological language acquisition model (e.g., Ullman,

2020). The neural circuits for declarative (e.g., prefrontal cortex, hippocampus)
and procedural (e.g., basal ganglia) are recruited in earlier phases of learning;
continued practice allows these two declarative and procedural systems to
train cortical–cortical representations associated with automatized skill (e.g.,
premotor cortex, left inferior frontal gyrus); this cortical representation, once
established, is directly accessed during fluent skill use (Suzuki, Jeong et al., 2023).
Another route of automatization is emphasized in other cognitive approaches
to L2 acquisition. According to usage-based approaches, implicit (unconscious)
learning from usage (i.e., communicative language experience in social
environments) can lead to automatization (Ellis, 2015). In this approach, language
learning is exemplar based; non-declarative (implicit) learning mechanisms such
as statistical learning, priming, and contingency learning play a major role in
building language networks of linguistic exemplars and regularities. Rule-like
regularities emerge and are abstracted through bottom-up processing of many
exemplars (Ellis & Wulff, 2020). Extensive L2 usage presumably contributes
to automatization, which is often described in research on implicit learning
processes as entrenchment, memory consolidation, and/or chunking (Schmid,
2017). However, “implicit learning would not do the job alone.” (Ellis & Wulff,
2020, p. 78) because implicit learning occurs very slowly and is unlikely to be
sufficient to learn all aspects of an L2. Ellis (2015) argues that explicit learning
through noticing allows for conscious registering of linguistic construction in
input, which is subsequently consolidated implicitly through statistical learning.
Hence, a synergy between explicit and implicit learning is likely required for
automatization of L2 skills, as acknowledged by both usage-based approaches
(Ellis & Wulff, 2020) and skill acquisition (DeKeyser, 2020). The question is
what aspects of language can be acquired and automatized through implicit
learning and explicit learning mechanisms, how effectively, and in which
contexts.
Since explicit and implicit learning processes are different, the resulting
automatized knowledge representations are presumably different (see DeKeyser,
2017 for a review). Explicit learning via declarative knowledge results in
automatized (speeded-up) explicit knowledge (e.g., DeKeyser, 2017), whereas
implicit learning brings about automatized implicit knowledge (e.g., Ellis &
Wulff, 2020). These two knowledge representations are distinguished based on
the consciousness (aware vs. unaware) criterion, but a long-standing question
regarding the interface between them is to what extent (automatized) explicit
knowledge influences the acquisition of implicit knowledge. In order to tackle
this interface issue, we need valid measures that can differentiate implicit
knowledge from explicit knowledge that is typically assessed by acceptability
judgment tasks (see Roehr-Brackin, 2022, for a review). Suzuki and DeKeyser
(2017) developed a battery of finely tuned tests for implicit knowledge (e.g.,
 Introduction 9

eye-tracking while listening task, word-monitoring task) and explicit knowledge

(e.g., acceptability judgment tasks). The behavioral data from 100 advanced L2
Japanese speakers living in Japan suggested that both automatized explicit and
implicit knowledge can develop in tandem and automatized explicit knowledge
plays a significant causal role in the development of implicit knowledge. While
acknowledging the importance of taking learner individual differences in
aptitude for explicit learning into account, Suzuki and DeKeyser concluded that
“because full automatization of explicit knowledge and attainment of implicit
knowledge require considerable time and effort, realistic goals for L2 classroom
instruction and learning include the attainment of proceduralization and partial
automatization, which build on initial declarative learning” (p. 782).
From a neurocognitive view, however, the neural network supporting
automaticity (i.e., the end products of explicit and implicit learning) is likely
to boil down to a single procedural system (Ashby & Crossley, 2012): cortical
representations such as left inferior frontal gyrus and premotor cortex
presumably underlie highly automatized skill (see Suzuki, Jeong et al., 2023, for
neural evidence of an incipient representation that supports the development of
automatic grammar processing among advanced L2 learners). This knowledge
representation network, which is drawn upon for accurate and fluent L2 skills,
can be evaluated by using multiple criteria (e.g., speed, efficiency, stability,
uncontrollability [ballistic], unconsciousness), and the degree of automatization
is assessed with behavioral measures such as reaction time and speech/writing
processing measures (see Part III of this volume). In sum, a central research
question posed in the framework of practice is how different types of practice
conditions influence different facets of automatization that are mediated by
declarative/procedural, explicit/implicit, and exemplar/rule knowledge
representations.

Principles of Practice for L2 Teaching and Learning

Extending DeKeyser’s (2007) conceptualization of practice, I will elaborate
the five principles of effective practice that are central to the current edited
volume: (a) deliberate; (b) systematic; (c) transfer-appropriate; (d) feedback;
and (e) desirable difficulty. In order to further stimulate this strand of L2
research, I propose that a combination of these principles, as well as each of
them separately, can be investigated systematically in SLA research. These core
principles are rooted in cognitive psychology. Since target content and skills
studied in psychology research are typically simple and do not necessarily scale
up to the complexity of L2 learning, this framework is used in this volume to
flesh out the concept of practice for SLA.
I primarily draw on skill acquisition theory to interpret the empirical
findings in the following sections with the premise that explicit learning is
10 Yuichi Suzuki

a viable and efficient mechanism for automatization in many classroom

settings (DeKeyser, 2017, 2007; Leow, 2015). While implicit learning may
be important for developing communicative competence, implicit learning
from usage depends far more on massive input, which does not always fit the
reality of instructed L2 learning settings. While implicit knowledge is typically
associated with idealized monolingual native speakers’ competence (for the
problems of the native speaker’s concept, see, e.g., Dewaele, 2018), proficient
L2 users also utilize automatized (e.g., speeded-up) explicit knowledge for
fluent comprehension and production (Saito & Plonsky, 2019; Spada, 2015;
Suzuki & DeKeyser, 2015). Furthermore, metalinguistic awareness to reflect
on the structural properties of language, often related to literacy development,
is also integral to language learning for both young and adult learners (Roehr-
Brackin, 2018). Despite the controversy over the precise role of automatization
via explicit learning mechanisms in L2 learning, I take the following position
for this chapter: in communicative language use, automatized explicit
knowledge often complements and functions similarly to implicit knowledge
and is a more realistic goal for L2 users, particularly in instructional settings.
This perspective is only one way of looking at language learning but hopefully
provides a valuable theoretical and practical point of view.

Deliberate Practice
Two renowned psychologists restated “practice makes perfect” to “almost always,
practice brings improvement, and more practice brings more improvement.”
(Newell & Rosenbloom, 1981, p. 1) This is still a simplistic view of practice.
Merely practicing a skill does not guarantee the acquisition of expert-level
complex skills, as we all know by our everyday experience, such as amateur
athletes playing sports for decades and never reaching professional levels.
One important departure from the simplistic view of “practice makes
perfect” is a seminal work by Anders Ericsson, who emphasized the importance
of deliberate practice. Deliberate practice is characterized as follows (Ericsson
& Pool, 2016): (a) setting a specific goal; (b) requiring full attention and effort
on performance; (c) immediate formative feedback; (d) repeated engagement of
the same or similar tasks; and (e) individualized training program with adaptive
difficulty. Informed teachers or coaches play an important role in designing
optimal sequences of deliberate practice.
These characteristics of deliberate practice diverge from “naive” practice
activities such as playful interaction and mindless mechanical drilling. In a
recent meta-analysis of deliberate practice for achieving expert performance
(see Harwell & Southwick, 2021, for a discussion), the contribution of such
deliberate practice has been estimated to be 20–30% of various outcomes in
multiple domains such as music (e.g., violin, piano), games (e.g., chess, scrabble),
 Introduction 11

sports (e.g., bowling, darts, volleyball, running, basketball), education (e.g.,

spelling bee, computer programming), and professions (e.g., soccer refereeing,
aircraft piloting). Given the prominent roles of other factors (e.g., cognitive
abilities, motivation) accounting for variance, the explanatory power of
deliberate practice (20–30% of total variance) is impressive. While deliberate
practice is not the only way for skill improvement, it is a useful concept that can
be applied to L2 practice research.
In L2 learning, deliberate practice refers to conscious and intentional
learning with the aim of developing accuracy and fluency in skills, supported
by procedural knowledge. Yet, a considerable amount of declarative knowledge
is also typically accumulated as a result of deliberate practice (e.g., through
consulting external resources such as dictionaries and grammar reference
books). Since it would be difficult for novice learners to engage in extended
interaction or free output activities, deliberate practice in the narrow sense
(“isolated” practice activities) is useful to strengthen faster and more reliable
retrieval of linguistic knowledge. Recently, several research syntheses have
revealed that intentional vocabulary practice activities such as fill-in-the-
blanks, flashcards, and controlled production activities are beneficial for long-
term retention (e.g., Boers, 2021; Webb et al., 2020). Furthermore, when
learning an L2 that is typologically different from learners’ L1 in specific ways
(e.g., orthography, phonology, morphology, and syntax), repeating focused
practice allows learners to work on their weak points, which may be due
to cross-linguistic influence to improve specific aspects of language skill
(McManus, 2021).
In addition to isolated practice, L2 learners benefit from contextualized
practice—repeatedly engaging with context-rich texts in a variety of ways. This
includes retelling, reading aloud, shadowing, memorizing, and participating
in creating meaning in dialogues, intensive reading, dictation, dictogloss, etc.
These are often called language-focused activities and have been found effective
for learning many linguistic exemplars in a short period time (Boers, 2021;
Nation, 2007). Among them, reading aloud (i.e., oral reading of passages) and
shadowing (i.e., listening to and repeating passages simultaneously) are rarely
discussed in the mainstream SLA research but are widely used in Asia (Butler,
2017; Hamada & Suzuki, 2022); they add a unique variety of deliberate practice
that aims at improving four language (sub)skills. One eye-opening anecdote
comes from my observations of reading aloud practice in junior high school
in Japan. In these successful English classes, beginner-level students were
engaging in oral reading of story passages many times (e.g., a total of 20–30
times) distributed over several classes. Were these seemingly “mechanical”
activities considered useless? No, quite the opposite—deliberate practice of
reading aloud was valuable; crucially, both teachers and learners understood
that the efficient skills gained through repeated practice (e.g., decoding of
12 Yuichi Suzuki

grapheme–phoneme mapping, internalizing linguistic exemplars, enhancing

articulation) would be an anchor for further extensive communication
activities. If a goal of learning is to master interactive communicative skills,
improving a set of subskills through this type of deliberate practice may be of
transitory importance in the entire learning process, but possibly crucial for
some learners to gain the foundational skills for engaging in communicative
L2 use more confidently. Therefore, the role of deliberate practice activities
should be not dismissed but rather embraced on the condition that they are
linked to subsequent communicative activities as quickly as possible (e.g.,
DeKeyser, 1998, 2007; Johnson, 1996; Paulston, 1970).
The benefits of this type of deliberate practice for skill acquisition have
been investigated only sporadically in SLA. Dai and Ding (2010) investigated
the effect of deliberately memorizing an English text through various practice
activities (e.g., recitations) on writing skill development among Chinese
university students. After the continued in- and outside-class practice over 4
weeks, the learners used more varied and accurate formulaic sequences in their
writing than those in a control group who studied the same text but without
deliberate memorization. In speaking skill development, deliberate practice is
also beneficial. In Fitzpatrick and Wray’s (2006) case study, six master’s students
(L2 English learners) in the UK deliberately memorized model sentences that
would be used in near-future situations that they would likely to encounter
(e.g., discussing a course assignment with a classmate). After the learners
individually memorized about ten model sentences tailored by the researchers
for their specific needs, they attempted to use memorized sentences in real
social interactions. Interestingly, the memorized sentences were not reproduced
verbatim in the interaction; some portions of them were integrated with existing
linguistic structures. For instance, when a learner memorized the sentence “I’m
not really sure what they want us to include,” they might integrate “want us
to include” to a new syntactic pattern such as “I’m wondering if the teacher
[wants us to include] this.” This may indicate the integration of new linguistic
resource gained through deliberate practice with existing knowledge, causing
restructuring of knowledge and contributing to fluent use—a potential sign
of incipient automatization. While this study is a small case study and more
empirical work is needed (see a replication by Cutler, 2020, in the context
of a Japanese company), deliberate practice can push learners to restructure
their existing knowledge and may gradually feed into the (re)creative process
of development of formulaic and rule-like knowledge, which is susceptible to
individual difference factors such as inductive learning ability.
Deliberate practice contrasts with incidental learning (e.g., reading and
listening for pleasure) with fleeting attention and lower-level awareness to target
linguistic knowledge and skill. Although focused language-directed practice
(e.g., flash-card vocabulary practice, retelling, dictation, dictogloss, oral reading
 Introduction 13

and shadowing activities) is effective to develop and hone target knowledge and
skills (Boers, 2021; Nation, 2007), it is effortful and may not be as enjoyable as
obtaining captivating information (e.g., watching a movie for entertainment).
While little research has explored the perception of deliberate practice in L2
learning, a conative factor such as grit (i.e., perseverance and passion for long-
term goals) was found to influence learners’ willingness to engage in deliberate
practice among L1 children studying for the National Spelling Bee contest
(Duckworth et al., 2011). Duckworth and colleagues found that the children
rated deliberate practice (memorizing words alone), compared to leisure verbal
activities, to be most effortful and least enjoyable; however, more gritty learners
engaged in more deliberate practice and achieved better performance in the
contest (see, e.g., Sudina et al., 2021 for a recent theorization of L2-specific grit
in different L2 learning contexts).
While higher motivation drives learners to engage in practice, higher
motivation may also result from deliberate practice. When L2 learners engage in
goal-directed practice activities over time, they gradually grow confidence and
then realize the benefits of deliberate practice (see Suzuki et al., this volume).
This type of motivation, according to self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci,
2017), is likely intrinsic, which stems from achieving high “competence” and
the feeling that their learning is effectively guided by deliberate practice. In
sum, deliberate practice forms a solid declarative and procedural base of L2
knowledge and skills; it is also mediated by learners’ perception and mindset
toward a given activity—whether an activity is seen as tedious and mandatory
versus rewarding and meaningful work they can learn from.

Systematic Practice
Systematic practice is all about timing. L2 practice can be enhanced by changing
(a) practice distribution; (b) practice sequence/variability; and (c) the timing of
language-focused support. Figure 1.1 illustrates how practice-related variables
(e.g., linguistic structure, skill, activity, task, lesson, and context) can be
distributed, sequenced, and varied, as well as decision points when language-
focused support can be provided.

Practice Distribution
Without increasing study time, changing temporal distribution can enhance
learning. Spacing practice activities over multiple short sessions leads to
better learning and retention than massing them all in one longer lesson. This
superiority of spaced practice over massed practice is referred to as the distributed
practice effect, which has been extensively documented in cognitive psychology
research (Cepeda et al., 2009). In a meta-analysis of 37 L2 studies (31 of which
14 Yuichi Suzuki

(a) Practice Distribution

Massed Short spaced Long spaced

A A A A A A

(b) Practice Sequence/Variability

Blocked Interleaved Variable

A A A A C B A B C
B B B C A B D E F
C C C B A C G H I

(c) Language-Focused Support Timing

Before During After

A A A A A A A A A

FIGURE 1.1 Some major dimensions of systematic practice.

Note: The alphabet letters indicate practice-related variables such as linguistic structure, skill,
activity, task, lesson, and context.

were published after 2010), Kim and Webb (2022) found (a) a medium-to-large
advantage for spaced practice over massed (no spacing) practice and (b) a small-
to-medium superior effect of longer-spaced practice relative to a shorter-spaced
practice. This impressive synthesis has just scratched the surface of this domain;
the majority of studies included in the meta-analysis focused on measuring the
acquisition of declarative knowledge through narrow, deliberate practice of
vocabulary and grammar.
Nevertheless, a small number of L2 studies focused on the acquisition
of procedural (non-declarative) phonological, lexical, and grammatical
knowledge. In contrast to Kim and Webb’s (2022) meta-analysis finding, these
studies tend to show that shorter-spaced practice is often as effective as or
sometimes even more beneficial than longer-spaced practice (e.g., Kasprowicz
et al., 2019; Li & DeKeyser, 2019; Nakata & Elgort, 2020; Suzuki, 2017).
Because proceduralization requires more repeated practice than the learning
of declarative knowledge, practice with shorter intervals or even massed
practice sometimes ensures successful retrieval of declarative knowledge—a
precondition for proceduralization.
As the development of L2 skills (i.e., reading, listening, speaking, and writing)
presupposes declarative and procedural knowledge to a different degree, the
 Introduction 15

impact of practice distribution presumably manifests itself in different aspects

of L2 skill. In three recent studies on distributed practice for L2 speaking
development (none of which was included in Kim and Webb’s meta-analysis),
for instance, massed practice (e.g., repeating the same speaking task in one class)
accelerates utterance speed and reduces disfluent pauses (Bui et al., 2019; Suzuki
& Hanzawa, 2021), whereas spaced practice (e.g., repeating the same task over
one week) allowed learners to increase the use of more complex sentences and
engage in more speech monitoring (Bui et al., 2019) and diversify lexical usage
(Kobayashi, 2022).
In a broader perspective, the time factor is also striking in curriculum
design. In many foreign language classrooms, instructional hours are only 2–3
hours per week spread over many years (e.g., Collins & Muñoz, 2016). As the
quantity and quality of practice are not often sufficient to develop procedural
knowledge in this context, intensive courses where instructional hours are
concentrated (e.g., 5–6 hours per day over several months) may create a more
optimal condition for proceduralization. This idea is supported by empirical
research conducted in Quebec in Canada (Lightbown, 2014) and European
countries (Muñoz, 2012). An exemplary study was conducted in Spain by
Serrano (2011), who compared two different distributions of 100+ class hours
in a regular curriculum (two 2-hour classes per week, distributed over the
academic year) and in an intensive curriculum (five 5-hour classes per week,
condensed in 4.5 weeks in the summer). The participants in these programs
were university students with either intermediate (B1 level in Common
European Framework of Reference [CEFR]) or advanced proficiency (B2/
C1 levels). Findings indicated that the intensive curriculum resulted in higher
learning gains (vocabulary and grammar knowledge, as well as receptive and
productive skills) among intermediate EFL learners only. According to Serrano
(2011), intensive and consistent practice opportunities afforded by the intensive
curriculum favored proceduralization for intermediate learners who needed
to practice without long lags, so that they could retrieve their declarative and
partial procedural knowledge for further consolidation. This finding is in line
with the aforementioned studies on proceduralization of linguistic knowledge
in more controlled experimental research (e.g., Li & DeKeyser, 2019; Suzuki,
2017). At different levels of L2 learning, a guiding question continues to revolve
around identifying the optimal practice distribution for the acquisition and
retention of different kinds of knowledge and skills for different learners.

Practice Sequence/Variability
The sequence and variation of practice also make use of timing factors. There
are many decision points for sequencing pedagogical activities in L2 learning,
e.g., from simple to complex, oral to written modality, familiar to unfamiliar
16 Yuichi Suzuki

contexts, monologic to interactive, etc. Cognitive psychology has a vested

interest in the optimal sequencing of learning events by blocking the exemplars
in the same category (AAA-BBB-CCC) or interleaving exemplars from different
categories (ACB-CAB-BAC) at once. For instance, while blocked practice is
prevalent in mathematics textbooks (e.g., presenting several problems in the
lesson on solving equations), evidence suggests that interleaving different kinds
of problems (solving graph problems as well as equations) is superior to blocking
for long-term learning (Rohrer et al., 2020). A meta-analysis by Brunmair and
Richter (2019) confirmed the advantage of interleaved practice on inductive
learning where concepts and rules are learned by studying exemplars. Yet,
the advantage of interleaving differed greatly for the types of materials: from
medium-to-large effect size observed for paintings and other visual materials,
to small effect for mathematical tasks, and null effect for expository texts.
To what extent does interleaving effect apply to different aspects of L2
learning? In L2 grammar acquisition, interleaving exemplars with different
rules seems to be superior to blocking exemplars by the same rules for acquiring
declarative knowledge learned through fill-in-the-blank grammar exercises
(Nakata & Suzuki, 2019). This is likely because interleaved practice can
facilitate the discrimination of the distinctive characteristics of constructions
that resemble each other, such as English tense–aspect–mood systems (past
tense, present perfect, hypothetical conditionals) or relative clause constructions
(subject and object relative clauses). Furthermore, hybrid practice, whereby
blocked and interleaved practice were combined, can promote the gradual
transition from declarative to procedural knowledge in controlled oral practice
(Suzuki & Sunada, 2019).
While the controlled format of grammar learning activities in these L2
studies resembles the kinds of practice activities (e.g., solving math problems) in
psychology research (Brunmair & Richter, 2019), Suzuki (2021) extended the
scope of research to L2 speaking practice. In his study, EFL learners engaged
in story narration tasks (six-frame cartoon) nine times over three study sessions
under either blocked (Day 1: Task AAA, Day 2: Task BBB, Day 3: Task CCC)
or interleaved condition (Day 1: ABC, Day 2: ABC, Day 3: ABC). In contrast
to most results from the grammar learning experiments, it was blocked practice
that led to higher fluency gains (e.g., faster articulation rate) that are associated
with the underlying proceduralization. The superiority of blocked practice was
attributed to recycling of linguistic structures that were activated during the
first task performance and were then reused in the subsequent performance in
the blocked practice condition (see “Transfer-Appropriate Processing” section).
While the practice sequencing keeps the types of tasks constant (the number
of type and frequency of Task A, B, and C was the same between blocked
and interleaved practice), increasing “variation” in task types can enhance
the effects of repeated practice. Motor skill research suggests that changing
 Introduction 17

practice conditions frequently contributes to the acquisition of skills that are

transferrable to other conditions (Schmidt & Bjork, 1992). For instance, variable
throwing practice (involving hitting multiple targets with a bean bag) resulted
in superior performance on the transfer test relative to constant throwing
practice (focusing on the same target) (Kerr & Booth, 1978). However, for L2
speaking fluency development, de Jong and Perfetti (2011) found the advantage
for constant practice over variable practice. They compared a high variable
practice schedule (Task ABC-DEF-GHI) with all different tasks of the same
type (monologue speech on different topics every speech delivery) against a
constant practice schedule (Task AAA-BBB-CCC). Results showed that only
the constant practice condition led to L2 fluency development. In other words,
changing from one task to another made a learning condition too variable and
difficult for learners to hone in on the target linguistic skills.
Although variable practice is essential to enable learners to use L2 in
new contexts, variability can become a friend or foe for L2 skill acquisition.
Constant practice allows learners to fine-tune the same skill in a familiar
learning condition, whereas varied practice brings out more diverse knowledge
and skills in new learning conditions. Given that only a handful of empirical
SLA studies are available on this point, the optimal integration of sequence and
variability must be further explored.

Timing of Support
Providing language-focused support at the right time is critical. While research
has been conducted extensively on the effectiveness of explicit and implicit
instruction (e.g., Goo et al., 2015; Norris & Ortega, 2000), scant empirical
attention has been paid to the timing of form-focused instruction. Language-
focused support should be provided judiciously to enhance accuracy of L2 skills
(while balancing fluency and complexity) and cover a wide range of linguistic
domains (pronunciation, vocabulary, formulaic sequences, grammar, and
pragmatics). Language-focused support takes many forms in classrooms: (a)
explicit instruction (Kachinske & DeKeyser, 2019); (b) corrective feedback (Li
et al., 2016); and (c) providing model input for consulting (Hoang & Boers,
2016; Khezrlou, 2021; Lynch, 2018).
In order to investigate the effects of explicit instruction timing, Kachinske
and DeKeyser (2019) conducted a laboratory study with L2 Spanish beginner-
level learners. They engaged in comprehension-based grammar practice on
target structures (Spanish word-order and ser/estar distinction). The timing of
providing explicit information was manipulated: before and/or during grammar
practice. Their findings suggested that, when learners were provided with the
explicit information during practice, they attained better outcomes with less
burden on their cognitive aptitudes (working memory and language analytic
18 Yuichi Suzuki

ability). Provision of explicit information prior to practice can reduce the number
of learning trials (hence, more efficient) to get the rule right in this type of
grammar practice, as demonstrated by research on processing instruction (e.g.,
Henry et al., 2009). In a L2 French classroom research, Michaud and Ammar
(2019) compared the pre-task, within-task, and post-task explicit instruction
on a complex structure (subjunctive). Intermediate-to-advanced (CEFR B1/
B2) learners used the French subjective to perform the main advice-giving tasks
(e.g., making a video to give advice on how to prepare for winter). The findings
revealed that within-task explicit instruction was more effective for learners
with less prior knowledge of the target structure, while pre-task instruction was
more effective for learners with higher prior knowledge. A follow-up stringent
analysis (i.e., ANCOVA, using the pre-test score as a covariate), however, could
not confirm this interesting interaction between instruction timing and prior
knowledge (see Michaud & Ammar, 2023). Future research needs to explore
optimal timing of explicit instruction by paying attention to the type of
practice, difficulty of structures, and proficiency, etc.
Timing of corrective feedback also influences L2 learning. In the study
conducted by Li et al. (2016), the timing of oral corrective feedback was
manipulated such that corrective recasts on the passive construction were
provided during the dictogloss tasks in the immediate corrective feedback
condition, whereas in the delayed corrective feedback condition, corrective
recasts were provided after the tasks were completed. Timing was operationalized
differently in Fu and Li’s (2022) study: dictogloss tasks were performed three
times in which corrective feedback on the English past tense was provided only
in the first training session (immediate) or in the final third session (delayed).
Despite the different operationalizations, immediate feedback was more
effective than delayed feedback on grammar acquisition. Immediate feedback
presumably reduced incorrect usage of target structure at an earlier stage of
learning; the subsequent practice served as an opportunity for fine-tuning the
linguistic knowledge representation.
Taken together, the findings from explicit instruction and corrective
feedback timing suggest that the sooner correct declarative knowledge is
established, the sooner this correct representation can be proceduralized. This
type of evidence, if replicated and generalized, has important implications in
teaching, as there may be many cases where learners spend prolonged time in
figuring out the linguistic patterns on their own, leaving insufficient time to
proceduralize, let alone automatize, the rule.
Input models can be exploited effectively in conjunction with repeated
receptive and productive practice. Reading/listening texts are useful for
learners to incidentally pick up (“mine”) and/or deliberately exploit (“model”)
linguistic exemplars such as formulaic sequence for developing a balanced
development of production skills in terms of complexity–accuracy–fluency
 Introduction 19

(e.g., Hoang & Boers, 2016; Khezrlou, 2021). Text models are useful linguistic
resources, functioning as a declarative crutch to enhance L2 production
planning, reflection, and monitoring in task repetition practice. Although the
right timing of provision of model texts has yet to be examined in the SLA
field, Lynch (2018) argues that making model texts available before and after
task performance is beneficial and well perceived by L2 learners. Form-focused
instructional support should be provided when learners need it the most, but
when that is still needs more research.
Finally, the role of systematic practice is also highlighted in study abroad
programs (e.g., DeKeyser, 2007). As study abroad programs often begin
after certain periods of at-home classroom instruction, instruction targeting
linguistic aspects (as well as promoting social and cultural understanding) is
an essential component that promotes a smooth transition from classroom to
study abroad context (e.g., Pérez-Vidal, 2014). Sustained linguistic support can
be provided pre-departure, on site, and after return to ensure the quantity and
quality of input and interaction practice for substantial skill development (see
McManus, this volume).

Transfer-Appropriate Processing
Transfer of learning and knowledge is considered to be an important issue in all
areas of education (Bransford & Brown, 1999; Haskell, 2001). For instance, does
learning one musical instrument provide an advantage when learning another
instrument? Transfer presumably occurs via some common skill components
(e.g., hand motions) for playing different instruments (e.g., trumpet and flute).
The term “transfer” here does not refer to cross-linguistic influence from L1
to L2; it concerns the extent to which the effect of practice transfers to other
linguistic structures, knowledge, skills, activities, tasks, and contexts ( James,
2018; Larsen-Freeman, 2013). Does linguistic knowledge learned through
controlled practice transfer to the ability to perform in a more open-ended
communicative task? To what extent can different L2 skills be practiced so
that acquisition of one form of knowledge contributes to the development of
another form of knowledge? How can contextualized practice in one context
(e.g., asking questions about products at a shop, giving directions on the street)
promote the ability to use knowledge in different contexts (e.g., asking questions
about service at a hotel, giving directions at the station)? Ultimately, to what
extent can learners apply what they learn in the classroom to the real world?
A key concept to understand transfer of learning is transfer-appropriate
processing (Lightbown, 2008; Morris et al., 1977). According to this account,
the retrieval of knowledge is influenced by how information is initially
encoded. Learning is maximized when the cognitive processes engaged in
during the initial learning match those engaged in during the outcome test.
20 Yuichi Suzuki

In line with the goal of developing communicative skills, practice conditions

need to ensure enough elements (e.g., expressing personal meaning, attending
to linguistic accuracy under communicative pressure) to support the transfer
from practice to outcome. This transfer-appropriate processing idea for L2
grammar instruction was tested by Spada et al. (2014). In their classroom
research with intermediate (B1 level in CEFR) learners in Canada, they
found that spontaneous use of grammatical knowledge is achieved when
form-focused instruction is integrated with communicative tasks, rather than
being decontextualized form-focused practice (see File & Adams, 2010 for a
different pattern of findings in integrated and isolated vocabulary instruction).
As acknowledged by the authors, this conclusion is considered tentative at
best given several methodological limitations (e.g., lack of a control group);
other important factors such as prior levels of grammatical knowledge and
general proficiency can also influence the optimal integration of form-focused
instruction with communicative tasks.
What are the crucial elements of knowledge that enable the transfer from
one practice task to a new task? Based on skill acquisition theory, declarative
and procedural knowledge play complementary roles in transfer of skills
(DeKeyser, 2018). Declarative knowledge is a general-purpose resource that can
be accessed in different contexts. As a case in point, Saito (2013) demonstrated
that only when explicit instruction on English /r/ is integrated in meaning-
oriented practice (debate, public speech, argument creation), pronunciation
improvement was generalized to unfamiliar contexts that were not covered
in the learning material. This transfer was presumably mediated by the solid
declarative knowledge developed through effective explicit instruction with
information about the manner of articulation and exaggerated pronunciation
models.
In contrast, procedural knowledge is less transferable, because it is the result
of compilation of multiple procedures for a behavior with a specific purpose.
Yet, procedural knowledge of the lexical items and syntactic structures that are
practiced in one task can still be applicable to a new task. Suzuki, Eguchi, et al.
(2022) re-analyzed the data from the aforementioned experiment by Suzuki
(2021) on repeated speaking practice and found that learners in the blocked task
repetition group, who showed higher fluency improvement on a new (transfer)
narrative posttest, recycled a higher proportion of the same lexical trigrams
(chunks such as “behind the bicycle”) and abstract syntactic structures with
the same parts of speech (e.g., prepositional phrase: “preposition + determiner
+ noun”) during practice. This suggests that immediately repeating the
same task on the same day could enhance the proceduralization of concrete
exemplars and more abstract (rule-like) structures for fluent speech production.
In contrast, interleaved task repetition resulted in less recycling of the same
lexical and abstract trigrams during practice, which could account for the
 Introduction 21

less pronounced fluency improvement on the transfer posttest. While varying

the stories of narrative task may allow for using a more variety of linguistic
structures, immediately repeating the same narration is an effective strategy
for promoting proceduralization and possibly automatization of exemplars and
rules that learners have used (see Lambert, this volume, for another option of
task sequencing).
To further promote the transfer of procedural knowledge from one task
to another, we also need to increase the matching elements across tasks such
as topic (e.g., giving a speech about tourism vs. democracy), task similarity
(e.g., narrative vs. interactive task), skill modality (e.g., oral vs. written),
contextual cues where exemplars and rules are used (e.g., expressing temporal
or locative information using a prepositional phrase), and pragmatic intention
(e.g., explaining an unforgettable event to a friend). To maximize transfer of
learning, it is useful to take into account these elements for sequencing practice
activities. As an initial attempt, Nikouee (2021) carefully sequenced 14 practice
activities targeting the English past-tense rules for L2 learners at a Canadian
university. These activities were graded from guided practice (e.g., listen to
what happened at a birthday party, narrate a one-picture story about summer
vacation) to more open-ended production practice (e.g., answering interview
questions about their last birthday, narration of an imaginary story about a
summer trip). These activities are interlinked to each other by ensuring common
elements in terms of topic content, context, communicative intention, and
skill modality. The learners who engaged in these practice sequences showed
higher fluency improvement than the control group who only completed
written grammar exercises (e.g., gap-filling, sentence completions). Practice
activities that are linked to subsequent ones by ensuring common elements
throughout judicious task sequencing can gradually increase learners’ control
by letting them express their own personal meaning freely for communication.
At the same time, learners’ affective and motivational factors (e.g., interest, self-
efficacy, engagement) need to be aligned so that learners actively use, expand,
and transfer declarative/procedural knowledge and exemplars/rules within and
outside classrooms. Given the limited empirical work on transfer of learning in
L2 research, this is an open area of research that needs a more comprehensive
approach investigating a set of cognitive, conative, and affective factors that
may contribute to successful transfer of learning.

Feedback
In education research, providing information on learners’ performance or
feedback is “one of the most powerful influences on learning” (Hattie &
Timperley, 2007, p. 104). Feedback promotes the alignment between current
learners’ knowledge/skills and desired goals. While there are different types
22 Yuichi Suzuki

of affective-oriented feedback (e.g., praise, punishment, rewards), corrective

feedback that brings changes in cognitive processes is the focus here. Useful
feedback helps learners to understand what their errors are, why they made
those errors, and how they can avoid them to improve their performance.
Corrective feedback has been found effective, according to a recent
comprehensive meta-analysis in education (Wisniewski et al., 2020), which
included several key meta-analyses on corrective feedback research in SLA.
Focusing on L2 research, Brown (2021) compiled 20 meta-analyses of corrective
feedback and made a crucial point: while both oral and written corrective
feedback exert positive influence on many aspects of L2 learning, the average
effect size varied considerably from one meta-analysis to another. Hence, the
core challenge is identifying the optimal moderators of corrective feedback
(see Nassaji & Kartchava, 2021, for a comprehensive review): (a) different types
of feedback (e.g., input-providing such as recasts vs. output-inducing such
as prompts); (b) the frequency and distribution of feedback (e.g., selective/
focused/ vs. comprehensive/un-focused); (c) mode of feedback (computer
mediated vs. face-to-face); (d) timing of feedback (e.g., immediate vs. delayed).
Furthermore, the effectiveness of these different types of feedback depends on a
large array of linguistic and learner-related factors; there is still a long way to go
before researchers fully understand these complex interactions. Among several
SLA theories guiding us to navigate these interactions, skill acquisition theory
accounts for the functions of corrective feedback in three developmental stages
(e.g., Leeman, 2007; Lyster & Sato, 2013; see also Sato, this volume): knowing
that a learner’s knowledge is wrong (declarative), knowing how to do it right
(procedural), and knowing how to do it better (automatization).
In L2 education, there are many ways of providing feedback for developing
declarative knowledge. In deliberate, isolated practice, the learner provides
a response to an item and receives feedback consisting of a correct answer
(e.g., correct L2 word forms, pronunciation, and grammatical structure) and
sometimes metalinguistic information (e.g., explanation about the rules).
For instance, during deliberate practice, a notoriously persistent problem in
pronunciation can be successfully tackled by individualized feedback with
precise and detailed diagnostic information from a smartphone app. In Zhu et al.’s
(2022) intervention study, English L2 learners with L1 Chinese received explicit
phonetic instruction on difficult features for them (dark /ɫ/ and interdental
fricatives /ð/and/θ/). They then engaged in 10-minute daily solitary practice
over one week outside the classroom using an augmented reality app. This app
analyzed their pronunciation, particularly the lips and tongue movement, and
provided feedback on the articulatory gestures. The experimental group was
found to develop higher awareness and more accurate pronunciation, at least
of the dental fricatives (not of the dark /ɫ/). A higher production accuracy
(procedural knowledge) was related to higher declarative knowledge about the
 Introduction 23

articulation gestures. This illustrates that feedback reminding learners about

relevant declarative knowledge during practice can raise awareness and promote
monitoring and thus potentially aid proceduralization.
Feedback can also build on declarative knowledge to initiate proceduralization.
In this case, output-inducing corrective feedback moves such as prompts are
particularly useful. Here is an excerpt of peer interaction between two English
L2 learners at the Japanese university:

Shun: But, actually, he won in World Cup. So, he can have confidence. He
must have confidence. If he have confidence.
Wataru: If he have? He have? (Prompt)
Shun: Oh! If he had confidence, we can believe him.
(Sato and Lyster, 2012)

Presumably, Shun’s signal prompted Wataru to activate his declarative

knowledge of the past tense marker and created an opportunity to reformulate
his utterance through “negotiation of form.” Modified output following
prompts in meaningful interaction is a kind of contextualized practice afforded
by corrective feedback. According to Lyster and Sato (2013), prompts during
interaction can contribute to restructuring of existing knowledge and promoting
proceduralization by pushing learners to self-correct their utterance. Self-
correction during speaking is an overt manifestation of a learner’s monitoring
process where declarative knowledge is drawn on for proceduralization
(Kormos, 2006). Because the monitoring process reflected by self-correction
contributes to complexity–accuracy–fluency development (Golonka, 2006),
output-prompting feedback is a valuable option in L2 learning along with other
types of corrective feedback (e.g., recasts, explicit correction).
Furthermore, the timing of corrective feedback is also critical for successful
proceduralization. While there are multiple ways of manipulating the timing of
oral corrective feedback (see “Systematic Practice” section), new technology also
affords an immediate (sometimes automated) corrective feedback on writing
skills. Shintani and Aubrey (2016) compared the relative effects of immediate
and delayed corrective feedback on the use of a complex grammatical structure
(English hypothetical conditional) in a writing task. While L2 learners engaged
in a writing task with an online collaborative writing program (Google Docs),
the teacher provided error correction on the hypothetical conditional in real
time (synchronous feedback) or after the draft was completed (asynchronous
feedback). The number of errors on the target structure decreased during the
writing process only in the synchronous feedback group; higher accuracy
was also observed in this group on a new writing task three weeks later. The
relevant declarative knowledge, activated by simultaneous error correction
during the writing tasks, presumably promoted proceduralization. Feedback for
24 Yuichi Suzuki

proceduralization can “indicate the need for greater attention and reliance on
declarative knowledge as well as the need to change the scope of a given rule or
procedure.” (Leeman, 2007, p. 117).
In order to pave the way for automatization of procedural knowledge,
corrective feedback is still critical to encourage self-monitoring and self-
correction in more open communicative practice (Sato & Lyster, 2012).
Extensive task repetition promotes automatization of exemplars, rules, and
fluent speech (Bygate, 2018); however, rushing automatization may compromise
the development of accuracy, as suggested by Thai and Boers (2016). Under
increased communicative and/or time pressure, L2 learners often draw on their
strong prior knowledge (e.g., automatized L1 routines) and end up creating
inaccurate L2 knowledge representations even when they receive extensive
meaningful exposure (Lyster & Sato, 2013). Without judicious feedback,
the incorrect exemplars and rules can become automatized and therefore
entrenched. Johnson (1996) argued that providing constant corrective feedback
before, during, and after task performance is essential in promoting noticing,
correcting, and monitoring under real operating conditions—meaningful L2
use. All in all, feedback is essential for practice to build new mental knowledge
representations and to restructure, fine-tune, and consolidate knowledge.

Desirable Difficulty
Guided by the four principles of practice, I have provided an overview of
evolving research on L2 practice. In essence, optimum practice entails a set
of deliberate learning components that is integrated into transfer-appropriate
contextualized practice in a systematic manner with judicious feedback, in order
to support the development of knowledge and skills that are both durable and
transferable to a variety of contexts. These four principles are not mutually
exclusive but complementary; in this final section, I present an overarching
theoretical framework that unifies these four principles for optimizing L2
practice.
Evidently, practice of a narrow, brief, simple, mechanistic, superficial,
routine, or playful kind does not optimize L2 learning. Practice should be
desirably difficult. The idea of desirable difficulty is not new. It was originally
proposed by Robert Bjork, an expert on memory and learning (Bjork, 1994). In
Bjork’s framework, creating desirably difficult learning conditions for learners
leads to lower performance during practice, but despite the initially slower rate
of learning, challenging practice eventually enhances long-term retention and
transfer of learning.
By applying this desirable difficulty framework to L2 practice, Suzuki et al.
(2019a) proposed that practice should be tailored to individual learners by taking
into account three factors contributing to L2 difficulty: (a) practice condition;
 Introduction 25

(b) linguistic difficulty; and (c) learner-related difficulty. All other things being
equal, the level of learning difficulty is increased by manipulating practice
conditions. Key parameters for increasing difficulty levels of practice condition
covered in this chapter are distributing repeated practice opportunities (rather
than massing), increasing the variation of the conditions (rather than constant/
same conditions), interleaving different exemplars/rules and tasks (rather than
blocking), and reducing linguistic support in contextualized practice (rather
than linguistic scaffolding). However, the difficulty should be interpreted in
relative terms; simply increasing the difficulty of practice is not necessarily
desirable. Two empirical studies reviewed in the “Systematic Practice” section,
Suzuki (2021) and de Jong and Perfetti (2011), compared two practice conditions
for fluency development training. Suzuki focused on blocked versus interleaved
practice, whereas de Jong and Perfetti compared constant versus variable
practice. Because interleaved and variable practice typically induce more
learning difficulty, it can be predicted that they would result in higher transfer
of learning (i.e., in these studies, fluent speech on a new task). However, the
results showed the opposite patterns. From the desirable difficulty perspective,
interleaved and variable speaking practice might have been too challenging and
cognitively demanding (hence, undesirably difficult) for the given learners. It is
thus important to create learning conditions that ensure effortful but successful
practice performance (see Koval, 2022, for an illustration in L2 vocabulary
learning).
Second, different linguistic structures benefit differently from practice.
Linguistic difficulty differs across domains (e.g., vocabulary, pronunciation,
grammar, pragmatics) as well as more fined-grained features within each
linguistic domain. In the domain of grammatical structures, for instance, key
linguistic variables are formal complexity and functional complexity (Housen
& Simoens, 2016). Higher formal complexity, for instance, can refer to the
number of allomorphs (e.g., -ed and -s have more allomorphs than -ing) and/
or the number of structural operations (e.g., passive sentences require more
transformations than active sentences). Higher functional complexity is
associated with a higher number of meanings and functions expressed (e.g.,
English articles have more functions and are more abstract than plural s).
Because different L2 features in different languages entail different levels of
difficulty for learners with different L1s, the kinds of practice and feedback need
to be matched to relevant psycholinguistic difficulties. Granena and Yilmaz
(2021), for instance, attempted to categorize grammatical difficulty based on
the complexity in (a) form and (b) form-meaning mapping. Their meta-analysis
revealed that corrective feedback was most effective for simple grammatical
structures (e.g., possessive determiners), followed by more complex structures
(e.g., past tense, third person s, articles), and least effective for the most complex
structures (e.g., comparative, passives, questions). As the effect of corrective
26 Yuichi Suzuki

feedback on most complex structures was small (d < 0.30), these complex
structures may be less likely to benefit much from corrective feedback; a
more explicit intervention may be necessary, such as deliberate practice with
metalinguistic explanations (McManus & Marsden, 2019.
Finally, learner-related difficulty concerns learners’ propensities such as
cognitive aptitudes (e.g., inductive or analytic ability, working memory,
explicit and implicit learning abilities), conative–affective factors (e.g.,
motivation, personality, anxiety), and prior knowledge, including first
language (L1) knowledge. In a research area originally espoused in education,
aptitude−treatment interaction was examined in order to match L2 practice
conditions to learners’ characteristics such as age, proficiency, cognitive
aptitude, motivation, and personality (DeKeyser, 2019). Findings yielded by
extant desirable difficulty and aptitude−treatment interaction research can
inform pedagogical decisions in three ways (Suzuki, 2022): (a) capitalization
on strengths (i.e., tailoring instruction to the strengths of individual learners),
(b) compensation for weaknesses (i.e., tailoring instruction to provide support
for what the learner cannot do), and (c) remediation (i.e., implementing
training regimens to fill the specific gaps in learners’ initial abilities). In the
aforementioned study by Kachinske and DeKeyser (2019), their preliminary
evidence suggests that certain timings of explicit instruction may alleviate the
burden on working memory and language analytic ability (compensation for
weakness).
In recent L2 research, the idea of desirable difficulty has been used to provide
more nuanced interpretations of complex interactions among practice conditions,
linguistic difficulty, and learner-related factors (e.g., Serfaty & Serrano, 2022;
Terai et al., 2021). Although exploring the synergies among these sets of
key variables is a major undertaking, it could provide the more fine-grained
information required for individualizing practice, particularly in technology-
mediated contexts (see Ruiz et al., this volume, on intelligent CALL).

Contributions to This Volume: Theory, Praxis, and Methods

This book aims to update and extend the concept of practice for SLA and
is divided into three main parts. Part I consists of two theoretical chapters,
each of which highlight receptive (input) and productive (output) practice.
Suzuki, Nakata, and Rogers (Chapter 2) elucidate the roles of receptive
and semi-productive practice for optimizing input and intake processing,
whereas Sato (Chapter 3) shows how L2 output skills develop through
communicative output practice and feedback by different types of learners
in different contexts.
In Part II, the roles of practice are evaluated in diverse contexts and
teaching approaches. The four chapters are ordered from the narrow (i.e., a
 Introduction 27

set of practice activities targeting different linguistic components in foreign

language classrooms) to the broadest sense of practice (i.e., communicative
skill development in study abroad). Marsden and Hawkes (Chapter 4) report a
five-year project of foreign language curriculum development involving many
high-stakes decisions. Their successful collaborative project also highlights the
challenges of bridging between instructed SLA research findings and solving
“real-world problems” under many practical constraints. Ruiz, Rebuschat, and
Meurers (Chapter 5) showcase several prototypes of intelligent CALL systems
to select practice activities based on learners’ interest and proficiency and to
provide adaptive feedback. They demonstrate the effectiveness of individualized
practice through large-scale ICALL research that allows for collecting
longitudinal learning data in ecologically valid contexts. Lambert (Chapter 6)
draws on a series of classroom research studies on task-based speaking practice
and proposes that a set of communicative tasks can be systematically sequenced,
along with pre-task planning, to develop L2 oral skills. McManus (Chapter 7)
provides an in-depth review of the role of practice in study abroad contexts.
From a skill acquisition theory perspective, he shows how high-quality practice
shapes complexity–accuracy–fluency development during study abroad.
These four chapters illuminate how different components of L2 practice are
emphasized and evaluated for a given group of teachers and learners in a given
institutionalized context. Due to the space limitation, this volume could not
cover all L2 learning contexts and learner types. Other discussions relevant
to skill acquisition theory are L2 learning in content-based instruction (e.g.,
Ranta & Lyster, 2018), teaching young L2 learners (e.g., Muñoz, 2007), and
individual differences in declarative and procedural memory (e.g., Morgan-
Short et al., 2022).
In Parts I and II, the authors answer two fundamental questions regarding
L2 practice. The first question is how (some of ) the five principles of effective
practice, which were introduced in this chapter, are relevant to different types
of practice activities and different contexts/teaching approaches (under the
section: “Principles of Effective Practice”). The second question concerns
strategies for enhancing automatization through L2 practice in specific contexts
and teaching approaches (under the section: “Insights Into Automatization”).
Although many L2 researchers recognize that both explicit–implicit and
intentional–incidental learning processes are necessary for developing
L2 knowledge and skills that are automatized and used for spontaneous
communication, the extent to which explicit and implicit instruction, learning,
and knowledge contribute to automatization remains to be established. The
debate on this issue is addressed in the contributions to the current edited
volume, where all authors discuss how L2 practice in various forms can be
integrated with specific L2 learning contexts for facilitating L2 automatization
from multiple angles.
28 Yuichi Suzuki

The last three chapters comprising Part III are devoted to methodological
synthesis of research for studying practice and automatization and to offer practical
and up-to-date guides for researchers who would like to carry out L2 research
on practice and automatization. Maie and Godfroid (Chapter 8) synthesize
research designs and methods commonly adopted in L2 research on practice.
Suzuki and Elgort (Chapter 9) and Suzuki and Révész (Chapter 10) present a
synthesis of experimental tasks and measurements to investigate automaticity
and automatization in comprehension (focusing on lexical and grammatical
processing and knowledge) and production (focusing on speaking and writing
fluency) skills, respectively. In the epilogue (Chapter 11), I summarize the issues
in the current volume and highlight the outstanding issues and challenges to
provide future directions. All in all, this volume is an ambitious endeavor to
bring together a team of researchers and stimulate further debate and dialogue
to advance our theoretical understanding of practice in applied linguistics and
SLA research.

References
Ashby, F. G., & Crossley, M. J. (2012). Automaticity and multiple memory systems.
WIREs Cognitive Science, 3, 363–376.
Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of
human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about
Knowing (pp. 185–205). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Boers, F. (2021). Evaluating Second Language Vocabulary and Grammar Instruction: A
Synthesis of the Research on Teaching Words, Phrases, and Patterns. New York: Routledge.
Bransford, J., & Brown, A. (1999). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Brown, D. (2021). Meta-analysis and research synthesis. In E. Kartchava & H. Nassaji
(Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and
Teaching (pp. 164–184). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brunmair, M., & Richter, T. (2019). Similarity matters: A meta-analysis of interleaved
learning and its moderators. Psychological Bulletin, 145, 1029–1052.
Bui, G., Ahmadian, M. J., & Hunter, A. M. (2019). Spacing effects on repeated L2 task
performance. System, 81, 1–13.
Butler, Y. G. (2017). ISLA in East Asian contexts. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.),
The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition (pp. 321–338).
New York: Routledge.
Bygate, M. (Ed.) (2018). Learning Language through Task Repetition. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Castagnaro, P. J. (2006). Audiolingual method and behaviorism: From misunderstanding
to myth. Applied Linguistics, 27, 519–526.
Cepeda, N. J., Coburn, N., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., Mozer, M. C., & Pashler,
H. (2009). Optimizing distributed practice: Theoretical analysis and practical
implications. Experimental Psychology, 56, 236–246.
Collins, L., & Muñoz, C. (2016). The foreign language classroom: Current perspectives
and future considerations. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 133–147.
 Introduction 29

Cutler, S. F. (2020). Developing Formulaicity: Memorisation and Production of Formulaic

Expressions in L2 Speakers of English. [Doctoral dissertation]. Cardiff University.
Dai, Z., & Ding, Y. (2010). Effectiveness of text memorization in EFL learning of
Chinese students. In D. Wood (Ed.), Perspectives on Formulaic Language: Acquisition and
Communication (pp. 71–87). London: Continuum.
de Jong, N., & Perfetti, C. A. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An
experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. Language Learning,
61, 533–568.
DeKeyser, R. M. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning
and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus
on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition (pp. 42–63). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Automaticity and automatization. In P. Robinson (Ed.),
Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 125–151). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2017). Knowledge and skill in ISLA. In S. Loewen & M. Sato
(Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition (pp. 15–32).
New York: Routledge.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2018). Task repetition for language learning: A perspective from
skill acquisition theory. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Learning Language through Task Repetition
(pp. 27–42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2019). Introduction to the special issue of aptitude-treatment
interaction in second language learning. Journal of Second Language Studies, 2,
165–168.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2020). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten, G. D. Keating,
& S. Wulff (Eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction (3rd ed.,
pp. 83–104). New York: Routledge.
DeKeyser, R. M. (Ed.) (2007). Practice in a Second Language: Perspectives from Applied
Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dewaele, J.-M. (2018). Why the dichotomy “L1 versus lx user” is better than “native
versus non-native speaker.” Applied Linguistics, 39, 236–240.
Duckworth, A. L., Kirby, T. A., Tsukayama, E., Berstein, H., & Ericsson, K. A. (2011).
Deliberate practice spells success: Why grittier competitors triumph at the national
spelling bee. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 174–181.
Elgort, I., & Warren, P. (2014). L2 vocabulary learning from reading: Explicit and tacit
lexical knowledge and the role of learner and item variables. Language Learning, 64,
365–414.
Ellis, N. C. (2015). Implicit and explicit language learning: Their dynamic interface
and complexity. In P. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages
(pp. 3–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ellis, N. C., & Wulff, S. (2020). Usage-based approaches to SLA. In B. VanPatten &
J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction (3rd ed.,
pp. 63–82). New York: Routledge.
Ericsson, A., & Pool, R. (2016). Peak: How All of Us Can Achieve Extraordinary Things.
New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
File, K. A., & Adams, R. (2010). Should vocabulary instruction be integrated or
isolated? TESOL Quarterly, 44, 222–249.
30 Yuichi Suzuki

Fitzpatrick, T., & Wray, A. (2006). Breaking up is not so hard to do: Individual
differences in L2 memorization. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 35–57.
Fries, C. (1945). Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language. Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press.
Fu, M., & Li, S. (2022). The effects of immediate and delayed corrective feedback on L2
development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44, 2–34.
Golonka, E. M. (2006). Predictors revised: Linguistic knowledge and metalinguistic
awareness in second language gain in Russian. The Modern Language Journal, 90,
496–505.
Goo, J., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y., & Novella, M. (2015). Implicit and explicit instruction
in L2 learning: Norris & Ortega (2000) revisited and updated. In P. Rebuschat
(Ed.), Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages (pp. 443–482). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Granena, G., & Yilmaz, Y. (2021). Corrective feedback and grammatical complexity: A
research synthesis. In E. Kartchava & H. Nassaji (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook
of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 754–776).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hamada, Y., & Suzuki, Y. (2022). Situating shadowing in the framework of deliberate
practice: A guide to using 16 techniques. RELC Journal, Early View.
Hanzawa, K., & Suzuki, Y. (in press). Does automaticity in lexical and grammatical
processing predict utterance fluency development? A six-month longitudinal study
in Japanese EFL context. Journal of Second Language Studies.
Harwell, K., & Southwick, D. (2021). Beyond 10,000 hours: Addressing
misconceptions of the expert performance approach. Journal of Expertise/June, 4,
220–233.
Haskell, R. E. (2001). Transfer of Learning: Cognition, Instruction, and Reasoning. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational
Research, 77, 81–112.
Henry, N., Culman, H., & VanPatten, B. (2009). More on the effects of explicit
information in instructed SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 559–575.
Hoang, H., & Boers, F. (2016). Re-telling a story in a second language: How well
do adult learners mine an input text for multiword expressions? Studies in Second
Language Learning and Teaching, 6, 513–535.
Horvath, J. C., Lodge, J. M., & Hattie, J. (2016). From the Laboratory to the
Classroom: Translating Science of Learning for Teachers. New York: Routledge.
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language
acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30, 461–473.
Housen, A., & Simoens, H. (2016). Introduction: Cognitive perspectives on difficulty
and complexity in L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 163–175.
Howatt, A. P. R. (2004). A History of English Language Teaching (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hui, B. (2020). Processing variability in intentional and incidental word learning: An
extension of Solovyeva and DeKeyser (2018). Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
42, 237–357.
Hui, B., & Godfroid, A. (2021). Testing the role of processing speed and automaticity in
second language listening. Applied Psycholinguistics, 42, 1089–1115.
 Introduction 31

Hulstijn, J. H., Van Gelderen, A., & Schoonen, R. (2009). Automatization in second
language acquisition: What does the coefficient of variation tell us? Applied
Psycholinguistics, 30, 555–582.
James, M. A. (2018). Teaching for transfer of second language learning. Language
Teaching, 51, 330–348.
Johnson, K. (1996). Language Teaching & Skill Learning. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Jones, C. (2018). Practice in Second Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kachinske, I., & DeKeyser, R. (2019). The interaction between timing of explicit
grammar explanation and individual differences in second language acquisition.
Journal of Second Language Studies, 2, 197–232.
Kasprowicz, R., Marsden, E., & Sephton, N. (2019). Investigating distribution of
practice effects for the learning of foreign language verb morphology in the young
learner classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 580–606.
Kerr, R., & Booth, B. (1978). Specific and varied practice of motor skill. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 46, 395–401.
Khezrlou, S. (2021). Focus on form in task repetition through oral and written task
modeling. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 61, 479–518.
Kim, S. K., & Webb, S. (2022). The effects of spaced practice on second language
learning: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 72, 269–319.
Kobayashi, M. (2022). The distributed practice effects of speaking task repetition.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 32, 142–157.
Kormos, J. (2006). Speech Production and Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge.
Kovacs, P., & Ashby, F. G. (2022). On what it means to automatize a rule. Cognition,
226, 105168.
Koval, N. G. (2022). Testing the reminding account of the lag effect in L2 vocabulary
learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 43, 1–40.
Lado, R. (1964). Language Teaching: A Scientific Approach. New York: McGraw Hill.
Lambert, C. (this volume). Integrating systematic practice into task-based language
teaching. In Y. Suzuki (Ed.), Practice and Automatization in Second Language
Research: Perspectives from Skill Acquisition Theory and Cognitive Psychology (pp. 144–
159). New York: Routledge.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2013). Transfer of learning transformed. Language Learning, 63,
107–129.
Leeman, J. (2007). Feedback in L2 learning: Responding to errors during practice. In
R. M. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a Second Language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics
and Cognitive Psychology (pp. 111–138). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Leow, R. P. (2007). Input in the L2 classroom: An attentional perspective on receptive
practice. In R. M. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a Second Language: Perspectives from
Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology (pp. 21–50). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Leow, R. P. (2015). Explicit Learning in the L2 Classroom. New York: Routledge.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1978). Skill theory and language teaching. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 1, 53–70.
Li, M., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2019). Distribution of practice effects in the acquisition
and retention of L2 Mandarin tonal word production. The Modern Language Journal,
103, 607–628.
32 Yuichi Suzuki

Li, S., Zhu, Y., & Ellis, R. (2016). The effects of the timing of corrective feedback
on the acquisition of a new linguistic structure. The Modern Language Journal, 100,
276–295.
Lightbown, P. (1985). Great expectations: Second-language acquisition research and
classroom teaching. Applied Linguistics, 6, 173–189.
Lightbown, P. (2008). Transfer appropriate processing as a model for classroom
second language acquisition. In Z. Han (Ed.), Understanding Second Language Process
(pp. 27–44). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Lightbown, P. (2014). Making the minutes count in L2 teaching. Language Awareness,
23, 3–23.
Lightbown, P. (2019). Perfecting practice. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 703–712.
Lim, H., & Godfroid, A. (2015). Automatization in second language sentence
processing: A partial, conceptual replication of Hulstijn, van Gelderen, and
Schoonen’s 2009 study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 1247–1282.
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2017). The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language
Acquisition. New York: Routledge.
Lynch, T. (2018). Perform, reflect, recycle: Enhancing task repetition in second language
speaking classes. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Learning Language through Task Repetition
(pp. 193–222). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lyster, R., & Sato, M. (2013). Skill acquisition theory and the role of practice in
L2 development. In M. García Mayo, J. Gutierrez-Mangado, & M. Martínez
Adrián (Ed.), Contemporary Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (pp. 71–92).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Marsden, E., & Hawkes, R. (this volume). Situating practice in a limited-exposure,
foreign languages school curriculum. In Y. Suzuki (Ed.), Practice and Automatization
in Second Language Research: Perspectives from Skill Acquisition Theory and Cognitive
Psychology (pp. 89–118). New York: Routledge.
Mayne, R. (2022). Straw methods: Clearing up misconceptions about ALM. Language
& History, Early View, 1–18.
McLaughlin, B., Rossman, T., & McLeod, B. (1983). Second language learning: An
information-processing perspective. Language Learning, 33, 135–158.
McManus, K. (2019). Awareness of L1 form-meaning mappings can reduce crosslinguistic
effects in L2 grammatical learning. Language Awareness, 28, 114–138.
McManus, K. (2021). Crosslinguistic Influence and Second Language Learning.
New York: Routledge.
McManus, K. (this volume). Practice in study abroad contexts. In Y. Suzuki (Ed.),
Practice and Automatization in Second Language Research: Perspectives from Skill Acquisition
Theory and Cognitive Psychology (pp. 160–178). New York: Routledge.
McManus, K., & Marsden, E. (2019). Signatures of automaticity during practice: Explicit
instruction about L1 processing routines can improve L2 grammatical processing.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 40, 205–234.
Michaud, G., & Ammar, A. (2019). Timing of focus on form in TBLT. Paper presented
at the 2019 International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching, Ottawa,
Canada.
Michaud, G., & Ammar, A. (2023). Explicit instruction within a task: Before, during,
or after? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 45, 442–460.
Moors, A. (2016). Automaticity: Componential, causal, and mechanistic explanations.
Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 263–287.
 Introduction 33

Moors, A., & De Houwer, J. (2006). Automaticity: A theoretical and conceptual

analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 297–326.
Morgan-Short, K., Hamrick, P., & Ullman, M. T. (2022). Declarative and procedural
memory as predictors of second language development. In S. Li, P. Hiver, & M. Papi
(Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Individual Differences
(pp. 67–81). New York: Routledge.
Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer
appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 519–533.
Muñoz, C. (2007). Age-related differences and second language learning practice. In
R. M. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a Second Language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics
and Cognitive Psychology (pp. 229–255). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Muñoz, C. (2012). Intensive Exposure Experiences in Second Language Learning.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Muranoi, H. (2007). Output practice in the L2 classroom. In R. M. DeKeyser (Ed.),
Practice in a Second Language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology
(pp. 51–84). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nakata, T., & Elgort, I. (2020). Effects of spacing on contextual vocabulary
learning: Spacing facilitates the acquisition of explicit, but not tacit, vocabulary
knowledge. Second Language Research, 37, 233–260.
Nakata, T., & Suzuki, Y. (2019). Mixing grammar exercises facilitates long-term
retention: Effects of blocking, interleaving, and increasing practice. The Modern
Language Journal, 103, 629–647.
Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (2021). The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in
Second Language Learning and Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nation, P. (2007). The four strands. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 2–13.
Newell, A., & Rosenbloom, P. S. (1981). Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law
of practice. In J. C. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive Skills and Their Acquisition (vol. 1,
pp. 1–55). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nikouee, M. (2021). Grammar Practice and Communicative Language Teaching: Groundwork
for an Investigation into the Concept of Transfer-Appropriateness. [Doctoral dissertation].
University of Alberta.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis
and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.
Ortega, L. (2007). Meaningful L2 practice in foreign language classrooms: A cognitive-
interactionist SLA perspective. In R. M. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a Second
Language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology (pp. 180–207).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Paulston, C. B. (1970). Structural pattern drills: A classification. Foreign Language
Annals, 4, 187–193.
Pérez-Vidal, C. (2014). Language Acquisition in Study Abroad and Formal Instruction
Contexts (Vol. 13). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ranta, L., & Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’
oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence. In R. M.
DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a Second Language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and
Cognitive Psychology (pp. 141–160). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ranta, L., & Lyster, R. (2018). Form-focused instruction. In P. Garrett & J. M. Cots (Eds.),
The Routledge Handbook of Language Awareness (pp. 40–56). New York: Routledge.
34 Yuichi Suzuki

Roehr-Brackin, K. (2018). Metalinguistic Awareness and Second Language Acquisition.

New York: Routledge.
Roehr-Brackin, K. (2022). Explicit and implicit knowledge and learning of an
additional language: A research agenda. Language Teaching, Early View, 1–19.
Rohrer, D., Dedrick, R. F., Hartwig, M. K., & Cheung, C.-N. (2020). A randomized
controlled trial of interleaved mathematics practice. Journal of Educational Psychology,
112, 40–52.
Ruiz, S., Rebuschat, P., & Meurers, D. (this volume). Individualization of practice
through intelligent call. In Y. Suzuki (Ed.), Practice and Automatization in Second
Language Research: Perspectives from Skill Acquisition Theory and Cognitive Psychology
(pp. 119–143). New York: Routledge.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in
Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York: Guilford Publications.
Saito, K. (2013). Reexamining effects of form-focused instruction on L2 pronunciation
development: The role of explicit phonetic information. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 35, 1–29.
Saito, K., & Plonsky, L. (2019). Effects of second language pronunciation teaching
revisited: A proposed measurement framework and meta-analysis. Language Learning,
69, 652–708.
Sato, M. (this volume). Skill learning theories and language teaching: Different strokes
for different folks. In Y. Suzuki (Ed.), Practice and Automatization in Second Language
Research: Perspectives from Skill Acquisition Theory and Cognitive Psychology (pp. 63–86).
New York: Routledge.
Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and
fluency development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 34, 591–626.
Sato, M., & McDonough, K. (2019). Practice is important but how about its quality?
Contextualized practice in the classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41,
999–1026.
Schmid, H.-J. (2017). A framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment and its
psychological foundations. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the Psychology of
Language Learning (pp. 9–36). Washington, DC: De Gruyter Mouton.
Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common
principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science,
3, 207–217.
Segalowitz, N. S. (2003). Automaticity and second languages. In C. J. Doughty &
H. M. Long (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 382–408).
Oxford: Blackwell.
Segalowitz, N. S. (2010). Cognitive Bases of Second Language Fluency. New York: Taylor
& Francis.
Segalowitz, N. S., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency
acquisition: Learning Spanish in at home and study abroad contexts. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 26, 173–199.
Segalowitz, N. S., & Hulstijn, J. (2005). Automaticity in bilingualism and
second language learning. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook
of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches (pp. 371–388). New York: Oxford
University Press.
 Introduction 35

Serfaty, J., & Serrano, R. (2022). Lag effects in grammar learning: A desirable difficulties
perspective. Applied Psycholinguistics, 43, 513–550.
Serrano, R. (2011). The time factor in EFL classroom practice. Language Learning, 61,
117–145.
Shintani, N., & Aubrey, S. (2016). The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous
written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in a computer-mediated
environment. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 296–319.
Spada, N. (2015). SLA research and L2 pedagogy: Misapplications and questions of
relevance. Language Teaching, 48, 69–81.
Spada, N., Jessop, L., Tomita, Y., Suzuki, W., & Valeo, A. (2014). Isolated and integrated
form-focused instruction: Effects on different types of L2 knowledge. Language
Teaching Research, 18, 453–473.
Stevick, E. W. (1986). Images and Options in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Sudina, E., Brown, J., Datzman, B., Oki, Y., Song, K., Cavanaugh, R., Thiruchelvam,
B., & Plonsky, L. (2021). Language-specific grit: Exploring psychometric properties,
predictive validity, and differences across contexts. Innovation in Language Learning
and Teaching, 15, 334–351.
Suzuki, Y. (2017). The optimal distribution of practice for the acquisition of L2
morphology: A conceptual replication and extension. Language Learning, 67,
512–545.
Suzuki, Y. (2021). Optimizing fluency training for speaking skills transfer: Comparing
the effects of blocked and interleaved task repetition. Language Learning, 71,
285–325.
Suzuki, Y. (2022). Individual difference factors for second language grammar. In S. Li,
P. Hiver, & P. Mostafa (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition
and Individual Differences (pp. 294–309). New York: Routledge.
Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2015). Comparing elicited imitation and
word monitoring as measures of implicit knowledge. Language Learning, 65,
860–895.
Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2017). The interface of explicit and implicit knowledge
in a second language: Insights from individual differences in cognitive aptitudes.
Language Learning, 67, 747–790.
Suzuki, Y., & Elgort, I. (this volume). Measuring automaticity in a second
language: A methodological synthesis of experimental tasks over three decades
(1990–2021). In Y. Suzuki (Ed.), Practice and Automatization in Second Language
Research: Perspectives from Skill Acquisition Theory and Cognitive Psychology (pp. 206–
234). New York: Routledge.
Suzuki, Y., & Hanzawa, K. (2021). Massed task repetition is a double-edged sword for
fluency development: An EFL classroom study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
44, 536–561.
Suzuki, Y., & Sunada, M. (2018). Automatization in second language sentence
processing: Relationship between elicited imitation and maze tasks. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 21, 32–46.
Suzuki, Y., & Sunada, M. (2019). Dynamic interplay between practice type and practice
schedule in a second language: The potential and limits of skill transfer and practice
schedule. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42, 169–197.
36 Yuichi Suzuki

Suzuki, Y., Eguchi, M., & de Jong, N. (2022). Does the reuse of constructions promote
fluency development in task repetition? A usage-based perspective. TESOL
Quarterly, 56, 1290–1319.
Suzuki, Y., Jeong, H., Cui, H., Okamoto, K., Kawashima, R., & Sugiura, M. (2023).
An fMRI validation study of the word-monitoring task as a measure of implicit
knowledge: Exploring the role of explicit and implicit aptitudes in behavioral and
neural processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 45, 109–136.
Suzuki, Y., Nakata, T., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2019a). The desirable difficulty framework
as a theoretical foundation for optimizing and researching second language practice.
The Modern Language Journal, 103, 713–720.
Suzuki, Y., Nakata, T., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2019b). Optimizing second language
practice in the classroom: Perspectives from cognitive psychology. The Modern
Language Journal, 103, 551–561.
Suzuki, Y., Nakata, T., & Rogers, J. (this volume). Optimizing input and intake
processing: A role for practice and explicit learning. In Y. Suzuki (Ed.), Practice and
Automatization in Second Language Research: Perspectives from Skill Acquisition Theory and
Cognitive Psychology (pp. 39–62). New York: Routledge.
Terai, M., Yamashita, J., & Pasich, K. E. (2021). Effects of learning direction in retrieval
practice on EFL vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 43,
1116–1137.
Thai, C., & Boers, F. (2016). Repeating a monologue under increasing time
pressure: Effects on fluency, complexity, and accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 50,
369–393.
Ullman, M. T. (2020). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiologically
motivated theory of first and second language. In B. VanPatten, G. D. Keating,
& S. Wulff (Eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction (3rd ed.,
pp. 128–161). New York: Routledge.
Ur, P. (2016). Grammar practice. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Teaching English Grammar to Speakers
of Other Languages (pp. 109–127). New York: Routledge.
Webb, S., Yanagisawa, A., & Uchihara, T. (2020). How effective are intentional
vocabulary-learning activities? A meta-analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 104,
715–738.
Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-
analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 3087.
Zhu, J., Zhang, X., & Li, J. (2022). Using AR filters in L2 pronunciation
training: Practice, perfection, and willingness to share. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, Early View, 1–30.
PART I

Foundations
2
OPTIMIZING INPUT AND INTAKE
PROCESSING
A Role for Practice and Explicit Learning

Yuichi Suzuki, Tatsuya Nakata, and John Rogers

Introduction
This chapter aims at situating the concept of practice, targeting input and
intake processing. Input and intake are considered as the two initial stages of
L2 learning from [Input > Intake > L2 Knowledge Representation > Output]
(e.g., Leow, 2015). Input is aural and/or written language that is processed by
learners. Intake presumably consists of two different components (Chaudron,
1985): (a) preliminary intake, which is a subset of input that is attended to by
learners, preceding any substantial learning, and (b) final intake, which is the
linguistic information or exemplars to be encoded into the learner’s developing
grammar. Some portion of final intake is integrated with L2 knowledge (e.g.,
phonological, lexical, syntactic, pragmatic), which is the L2-specific linguistic
resources available for production.
Input and intake processing are critical components for L2 learning. Given
their receptive nature, input and intake processing are linked to L2 reading
and listening skills. These receptive skills need to be learned to the extent
that they are executed efficiently (automatically). Achieving automaticity
is an enormous undertaking, necessitating extensive reading and listening
experience. While the quantity of input is necessary, it is essential to consider
the quality of input processing and the ways in which learners develop their
accurate (target-like) and efficient input processing skills. For instance,
declarative knowledge about specific aspects of the L2 is often instrumental
in prompting learners to move away from incorrect processing strategies (e.g.,
McManus & Marsden, 2019).

DOI: 10.4324/9781003414643-3
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
 CHAPTER IV
CAREER AS AN EDUCATIONAL REFORMER: 1628–
1656
Flight to Poland—Appointed director of the gymnasium at Lissa—Reforms
introduced—Literary projects—Need of a patron—Call to England—Friendship
with Hartlib—Interest of the English Parliament—Discontent with existing
educational institutions—Lewis de Geer, his Dutch patron—Call to Sweden—
Interview with Oxenstiern—Located at Elbing—Reform of the Swedish schools
—Return to Poland—Consecration as senior bishop—Consequences of the
treaty of Westphalia—Ecclesiastical ministrations—Call to Hungary—Reform of
the schools at Saros-Patak—Plan of a pansophic school—Return to Lissa—The
city burned—Flight of Comenius from Poland.
After the flight from Bohemia, Comenius and his compatriots found a
refuge at Lissa, Poland, with Count Raphael, a powerful prince of the
faith of the Moravian Brethren, to whose estate hundreds of
persecuted Bohemians had already fled. Twelve years were passed
in Lissa, during which time Comenius was actively engaged in
educational reform. Besides the composition of three of his most
important books—the Janua, in 1631, the Great didactic, probably in
1632, and the School of infancy, in 1633—he engaged actively in the
work of teaching. A secondary school of acknowledged repute had
been maintained in Lissa by the Moravian Brethren since 1555, and
here Comenius found the opportunity of putting into practice some
of his educational theories. It is apparent, however, from his
writings, that he read widely before undertaking the reorganization
of the gymnasium at Lissa, and that he sought aid from all the
writers on education, both ancient and modern. His correspondents
at this period included such distinguished names as Lubin, Andreæ,
Ritter, Vogel, Ratke, Frey, Mencel, Hartlib, Evenius, Johnstone, and
Mochinger. To these distinguished contemporaries he expresses his
dissatisfaction with current educational practices, and seeks
guidance in the reform movement he has instituted in Poland.
“When our people attend school for the sake of the learned
languages, what do they bring with them on returning home?” he
asks. “What beyond that which they obtain there—the tinkling of
human eloquence, the love of disputation, and the knowledge that
puffeth up instead of the charity that buildeth up. Moreover, some
acquire corrupt morals; some, a desire to make themselves
agreeable by a show of external civility; some, habits of
intemperance and a distaste or hatred of firm discipline. And yet
these very men were trained for the lights of the Church and the
pillars of the State. O that, instead of such an education, we had
retained the simplicity of childhood. O that we might bring back the
ancient custom of the Spartans, who, more than all the other
Greeks, were intent upon the rational education of their youth.”
A noteworthy feature of his work as a reformer at Lissa consisted in
a careful grading of the schools, and the formulation of a course of
study for the successive grades. The guiding principle in this
schematization of school work was that each grade should pave the
way for the one next higher,—the elements of all subjects of study
being comparatively simple, these elements should be gradually
introduced and elaborated from grade to grade. These reforms were
not only far-reaching, they were revolutionary; and they made
possible the modern graded school.
Civilized Europe did not long remain in ignorance of these reforms.
They were discussed with approval in England, Germany, France,
and Sweden; and several foreign governments sought his services in
the work of educational reform. Sweden, in 1638, tendered him a
remunerative position and unlimited opportunities of reforming the
schools of the kingdom along the lines laid down in his writings. He
replied that he was willing to recommend a competent person to
undertake the work, but that he was not in position to sever his
relations with the Moravian Church in Poland and to leave unfinished
some important educational writings.
His own poverty, as well as that of his brethren, made him realize
keenly the need of a wealthy patron to aid him in the realization of
his educational ideals. “The vastness of the labors I contemplate,” he
wrote, “demands that I should have a wealthy patron, whether we
look at their extent, or at the necessity of securing assistants, or at
the expense generally. I propose to render the study of science,
philosophy, and theology more accessible to all parties, and of
greater usefulness in the regulation of human affairs than has
hitherto been the case. In order to do this, two kinds of books are
necessary—(1) for philosophical research and (2) for elementary
training.
“Books of the first class would primarily have reference to the Latin
language, and of this class I would adopt eight:—
“1. The Vestibulum, or introduction to the Latin tongue.
“2. The Janua, or gate of the Latin tongue.
“3. The Palace, or essentials of the Latin language.
“4. A dictionary giving the meaning of the Latin words in the mother-
tongue.
“5. A dictionary giving all the words of the native language in Latin,
and more especially supplying phrases of the former language with
corresponding phrases in the latter.
“6. A Latin dictionary explaining all the peculiar idioms of the
language.
“7. An elementary grammar containing all the declensions and
conjugations, and to be used in connection with the Vestibulum.
“8. A more comprehensive grammar, to be used in connection with
the Janua.
“The books to be used in connection with elementary training are
three:—
“1. Pansophia, or universal wisdom. This book should comprise the
sum total of human wisdom, and be so expressed as to meet the
requirements of both the present and future ages. The method to be
followed in such a book would be to reduce it to certain fundamental
principles, beyond the compass of which no part of human
knowledge can reach. Such first principles are God, the world, and
common sense.
“2. Panhistoria, or universal history. This work must comprehend the
most vital facts of all ages. Universal history is a most excellent
handmaid of the understanding, searching into the causes of all
things, and inquiring into the laws of cause and effect. Instruction in
history must be graded. It might be arranged in six classes—Bible
history, natural history, history of inventions, history of morals,
history of the various religious rites, and general history.
“3. General dogmatics. These have to treat of the different theories
taken by human ingenuity, the false as well as the true, thereby
preventing a relapse into vain speculations and dangerous errors.
“One man is not able to accomplish an undertaking of such
magnitude. There ought to be some clever linguists, perhaps three
well versed in philosophy, an able historian, and a man thoroughly
acquainted with Biblical literature. As regards the philological labors,
I have already met with an excellent assistant in Mr. Wechner. Nor
are clever coadjutors wanting for the Pansophia, who have not only
offered the treasures of their libraries, but who have offered
themselves in their coöperation in this work. Among these my friend
Hartlib far excels. I do not know his equal in the extent of his
knowledge, his acuteness of reasoning, his zeal to become useful to
the welfare of mankind, his fervent love for a philosophy unmixed
with errors and fanciful speculations, and his self-denial in order to
further the objects in view.”
Such a patron, however, was not at once forthcoming, although it
would appear from his letters that Count Bohulslaw of Lissa, whom
he styles “the chief in the kingdom of Poland,” was of some
pecuniary assistance to him at this time in the development of his
theories.
The wide publication of his writings aroused a keen interest in his
reforms, and especially in England. Samuel Hartlib, who
corresponded extensively with the learned men of Europe, had
already translated into English several of the educational writings of
Comenius, and in various other ways had interested the English
public in the work of the Moravian reformer.
The keen personal interest of Hartlib in the work of Comenius had
important temporary consequences on the direction of the reformer’s
activities during the next few years. Hartlib at this time was the most
interesting figure in English educational history. “Everybody knew
him,” says Professor Masson.16 “He was a foreigner by birth, being
the son of a Polish merchant who had left Poland when the country
fell under Jesuit rule, and had settled in Elbing in Prussia, in very
good circumstances. Twice married before to Polish ladies, this
merchant had married in Prussia for his third wife the daughter of a
wealthy English merchant at Dantzig; and thus our Hartlib, their son,
though Prussian born and with Polish connections, could reckon
himself half English. The date of his birth was probably about the
beginning of the century. He appears to have first visited England in
or about 1628, and from that time, though he made frequent
journeys to the continent, London had been his headquarters. Here,
with a residence in the city, he carried on business as a merchant,
with extensive foreign correspondence, and very respectable family
connections. But it did not require such family connections to make
Hartlib at home in English society. The character of the man would
have made him at home anywhere. He was one of those persons
now styled philanthropists, or friends of progress, who take an
interest in every question or project of their time promising social
improvement, have always some irons in the fire, are constantly
forming committees, or writing letters to persons of influence, and
live altogether for the public. By the common consent of all who
have explored the intellectual and social history of England in the
seventeenth century, he is one of the most interesting and
memorable figures of that whole period. He is interesting both for
what he did himself and on account of the number and intimacy of
his contacts with other interesting people.”
Through Hartlib’s influence the English Parliament invited Comenius
to England. This was in the summer of 1641. Comenius himself may
be permitted to tell how all this came about: “After my Pansophia
had been published and dispersed through the various countries of
Europe, many learned men approved of the object and plan of the
work, but despaired of its ever being accomplished by one man
alone, and therefore advised that a college of learned men should be
instituted to carry it into effect. Mr. Samuel Hartlib, who had
forwarded its publication in England, labored earnestly in this matter,
and endeavored by every possible means to bring together for this
purpose a number of intellectual men. And at length, having found
one or two, he invited me with many strong entreaties. As my
friends consented to my departure, I proceeded to London, and
arrived there on the autumnal equinox (September the 22d) in the
year 1641, and then learned that I had been called thither by an
order of the Parliament. But, in consequence of the king having gone
to Scotland, the Parliament had been dismissed for three months,
and, consequently, I had to winter in London.”
His friends meanwhile examined with more detail his educational
views and encouraged him to elaborate his views in a tract, which he
named Via lucis, or the way of light. This, as he himself says, was “a
national disquisition as to the manner in which wisdom—the
intellectual law of minds—may at length toward the evening of the
world be felicitously diffused through all minds in all nations.”
Around Comenius Hartlib soon collected a group of thoughtful men
interested in the Moravian reformer’s views; and together we may
suppose they discussed at length the larger educational problems
already formulated by Comenius in his published writings. The group
included, besides Hartlib, Mr. John Pell, a mathematician of
acknowledged repute; John Milton, the poet and educational writer;
Theodor Haak, the expositor of philosophic systems; John Wilkins,
the agricultural enthusiast; John Durie, the advocate of evangelical
unity; Thomas Farnaby, the schoolmaster at Sevenoaks and one of
the English editors of Comenius’ Janua; and probably the American
Winthrop, later governor of Connecticut, who was wintering in
London. He was delighted with London and the people he met.
Writing to friends in Lissa, he says: “I live as a friend among friends;
though not so many visit me as would if they knew that I could
speak English, or if they had more confidence in their own Latin.”
When Parliament finally convened “and my presence being known,”
writes Comenius, “I was commanded to wait until after some
important business having been transacted, a commission should be
issued to certain wise and learned Englishmen to hear me and be
informed of my plan. As an earnest, moreover, of their intentions,
they communicated to me their purpose to assign to us a college
with revenues, whence some men of learning and industry selected
from any nation might be honorably sustained either for a certain
number of years or in perpetuity. The Savoy in London, and beyond
London, Winchester, and again near the city, Chelsea, were severally
mentioned, and inventories of the latter and its revenues were
communicated to me; so that nothing seemed more certain than
that the designs of Lord Bacon to open a universal college of all
nations, devoted solely to the advancement of the sciences, were
now in way of being carried into effect.”
Comenius had assumed that when the call to England came to him
at Lissa, it simply represented a private movement backed by Hartlib
and other influential Englishmen; and he expresses himself in terms
of delighted surprise upon arriving in London to find that he had
been summoned thither by the Parliament of the realm. The
parliamentary sanction of this summons has never been
corroborated. Professor Masson made the attempt, but was unable
to find in the Lords’ or Commons’ Journal for the years 1641 and
1642 any traces of communication between Comenius and the
Parliament of which he speaks. He admits that there may be such
corroborative evidence, since the indexes for these years are
incomplete. There are, however, no good and sufficient reasons for
doubting the word of Comenius in this matter.
There are traces at this period of parliamentary dissatisfaction with
current English education, and more particularly with university
education in England. Professor Masson thus states the matter:
“There had for some time been a tradition of dissatisfaction with the
existing state of the universities and the great public schools. In
especial, Bacon’s complaints and suggestions in the second book of
his De Augmentis had sunk into thoughtful minds. That the
universities, by persistence in old and outworn methods, were not in
full accord with the demands and needs of the age; that their aims
were too professional and particular, and not sufficiently scientific
and general; that the order of studies in them was bad, and some of
the studies barren; that there ought to be a bold direction of their
endowments and apparatus in the line of experimental knowledge,
so as to extract from nature new secrets and sciences for which
humanity was panting; that, moreover, there ought to be more
fraternity and correspondence among the universities of Europe and
some organization of their labors, with a view to mutual illumination
and collective advancement:—all these Verulamian speculations, first
submitted to King James, were lying here and there in English
intellects in watch for an opportunity.”
But the time was not yet come for the reform movement in English
education. Ireland was in a state of commotion; two hundred
thousand Englishmen had been massacred;17 the sudden departure
of the king from London on the 10th of January, 1642, and the
prospect of a prolonged civil war convinced Comenius that it would
be useless to tarry longer in England. He informed his friends of his
disappointment of his plans. Hartlib was hopeful and urged delay,
but a call to Sweden, made four years previous, was renewed at this
time, and he left London on the 10th of June, in the year 1642.
Lewis de Geer, a rich Dutch merchant and philanthropist, residing at
Nordköping, Sweden, had offered to render him financial aid in
working out his educational reforms in Sweden. But de Geer’s
notions of reform differed widely from those of the English friends.
He was less interested in universal research, the founding of
pansophic colleges, and the results of original investigation than
Hartlib and the Englishmen. What he wanted was better school-
books for the children, rational methods of teaching for the teachers,
and some intelligent grading of the schools. The English friends were
satisfied with the broad generalities of pansophic learning, the
unrealized dreams that were so very near the reformer’s heart; the
Dutch merchant would be satisfied with nothing less than concrete
applications of theories. There is no doubt that Comenius would
have preferred lingering in England or going to some place where his
cherished pansophic schemes might be given a hearing. But he was
human and had organic needs, and he knew that the liberal
remuneration offered him by de Geer would avert poverty even
though the realization of his pure and exalted pansophic dream was
deferred.
“In the history of great renunciations,” says Mr. Keatinge,18 “surely
none is stranger than this. We have a man little past the prime of
life, his brain teeming with magnificent, if somewhat visionary, plans
for social reform, a mighty power in the community that shaved his
religious ideas, and an object of interest even to those who may
have shrugged their shoulders at his occasional want of balance.
Suddenly he flings his projects to the winds, consigns his darling
plans to the dustheap of unrealizable ideas, and retires to a small
seaside town—not to meditate, not to give definite form to latent
conceptions or to evolve new ones, not to make preparation for the
dazzling of intellectual Europe with an octavo of fantastic
philanthropy or of philosophic mysticism, but—to write school-books
for the little boys in Swedish schools.”
Comenius went from London to Nordköping, where he spent some
days in conference with his new patron, Lewis de Geer. He was not
to receive a stipulated salary, but to be paid certain sums upon the
completion of definite texts, the number and character of the same
to be determined by the educational authorities at Stockholm,
whither de Geer directed Comenius to go for further orders. In
Stockholm he met with Lord Axel Oxenstiern, grand chancellor of the
kingdom of Sweden, and Dr. John Skyte, professor of canon and civil
law (as well as chancellor) in the University of Upsala. Of this
conference Comenius says: “These two exercised me in debate for
four days, and chiefly Oxenstiern, that eagle of the north. He
inquired into the foundations of both my schemes, the didactic and
the pansophic, so searchingly that it was unlike anything that had
been done before by any of my learned critics. In the first two days
he examined the didactics, with, at length, this conclusion: ‘From an
early age,’ said he, ‘I perceived that our method of studies generally
in use is a harsh and crude one, but where the root of the trouble
was I couldn’t find out. At length having been sent by my king
[Gustavus Adolphus], of glorious memory, as ambassador into
Germany, I conversed on the subject with various learned men. And
when I heard that Wolfgang Ratke was toiling at a reformed method,
I had no rest of mind until I had got that gentleman into my
presence; but, instead of a talk on the subject, he offered me a big
volume in quarto to read. I swallowed that trouble; and, having
gone through the book, I noted that he detected not badly the
maladies of the schools; but the remedies he proposed did not seem
to me sufficient. Yours, Mr. Comenius, rest on firmer foundations.’”19
The consultation with Oxenstiern and Skyte continued four days, at
the conclusion of which they rendered their decision on his various
theories. With reference to his pansophic notions, they saw little of
immediate utility to the welfare of mankind. But his didactics they
regarded with favor. They urged him to give his attention to the
reformation of teaching and the preparation of suitable text-books.
While somewhat chagrined at this unsympathetic attitude toward his
pansophic theories, and a little surprised to learn that de Geer
should be of the same mind, he was forced to acquiesce, not,
however, without the earnest solicitations of Hartlib and his English
friends not to forsake the cherished pansophic principles.20
The town of Elbing, on the Baltic Sea, in West Prussia, was
designated by de Geer as a suitable residence for Comenius during
the time that he should be in the service of the Swedish educational
department. Here he settled, with his family and the assistants de
Geer had permitted him to employ at the patron’s expense, in
October, 1642. The chief task imposed upon him was the compilation
of a series of text-books for use in elementary and secondary
schools. But progress was slow; the Swedes became impatient, and
de Geer grew restive. In consequence, the relations with his patron
soon became strained, and continued so during most of the Elbing
period. In reply to a complaint from de Geer, Comenius wrote him in
September, 1643: “I compose books and do not merely copy those
of others. Our proposed work is not merely a book, but a real
treasure for the aiding of whose production my patron will assuredly
have no cause for regret.” He admits that he has been diverted from
the completion of a work on language teaching by a philosophic
treatise which he considers of far greater importance than the
details of methodology.
In addition to the philosophic studies, in which de Geer and the
Swedes had little or no interest, Comenius dissipated his energies in
other ways. When it became generally known that he had located in
Elbing, the wealthy patrons of the local high school petitioned the
town council to secure him to give weekly lectures to the pupils. In
other ways he identified himself with local interests, which diverted
his time from his assigned tasks. Moreover, his connection with the
Moravian Brethren compelled him to make frequent trips to Poland
to attend ecclesiastical conventions and minister to the needs of the
scattered brethren. De Geer’s patience must have been sorely tried,
for he sent to Elbing, with annoying frequency, to inquire concerning
the progress of the work. In reply, Comenius begged his patron have
patience; he explained the difficult nature of his labors, and assured
him that he was making as much progress as was consistent with
the nature of his undertaking.
Toward the close of 1646 he went to Sweden and made a personal
report to his patron, covering the four years of his employment. A
government committee was appointed to review his work; its report
was most favorable to Comenius; and he was urged to get the work
in shape for immediate publication. He had prepared during this
time, in spite of distractions, a work on language teaching, which
treated of its nature, function, and the laws to be observed in
language teaching; a lexicon based on these laws; and a series of
graded reading books.
At the death of Justinus, the senior bishop of the Moravian Brethren
in 1648, Comenius was elected his successor. His new duties made
his removal to Lissa necessary, and he took with him the unfinished
treatises for the Swedes, and sent them to de Geer as rapidly as he
was able to complete them. It caused him no pang of sorrow to
sever his connection with the Dutch merchant and the Swedes. For
he was isolated at Elbing; his labors were uncongenial, and the
remuneration which he received was small. It is apparent from his
letters, subsequently written, that it was not merely the Dutchman’s
gold that held him to tasks so arduous and uncongenial. He hoped
by this connection to secure the moral support of the Swedes in
removing from the Moravian Brethren the ban which exiled them
from their beloved fatherland.
The treaty of Westphalia, however, shattered this hope. There was
not a single stipulation in favor of the exiled brethren. The promises
Sweden had made to Comenius in this matter were disregarded. In
vain he implored Oxenstiern not to forsake his people. “My people
have aided your arms with their weapons, the unceasing offerings of
their tears and supplications to God; and now, when they see your
success and may rejoice in the hope for a more favorable issue of
affairs, they are troubled with dread apprehension lest they should
be forsaken.” Later he wrote him: “Of what use is it to us, who are
now deprived of every hope of peace, to have assisted you with our
tears in obtaining victory; when, although it lay within your power to
release us from our prison-house, you surrender us anew into the
hands of our oppressors? Of what avail now all those holy
evangelical alliances formed by our ancestors, and consecrated with
their sacred martyr-blood?”21 But these importunities were of no
avail; for, while equal privileges were granted to the Reformed,
Lutheran, and Catholic churches in Germany, in Bohemia, and
Moravia, the ritual of the latter alone was established. It was a
severe blow to Comenius, as well as to the whole brotherhood of the
Moravian Church.
The years 1648 to 1650 were passed in ministrations to the
dispersed brethren;22 he was especially conscientious in the
discharge of the duties of his episcopal office; he established more
intimate relations between the Polish and Hungarian branches of the
Moravian churches; he sought and secured important financial aid
for the brotherhood in England, Holland, and Sweden; he secured
positions as teachers for many of his exiled countrymen; and
induced the University of Oxford to create stipends for Bohemian
students. Gindely remarks that at this period there were few
European countries in which the protégés of Comenius could not be
found in the capacity of private tutors, public school-teachers,
artists, or clergymen.
The impoverished condition of the Moravian Church caused
Comenius no little concern, and induced him to look with some favor
on the numerous calls to important educational posts which came to
him from foreign countries. That from the widow of Prince Rakoczy
and her son Sigismund was especially tempting. They wanted him to
come to Transylvania, Hungary, and reform the school system. A
liberal salary was offered, together with complete facilities for the
organization of a school system in accordance with his own views—
including a printing establishment for the publication of required
books. It was further stipulated that he might bring with him ten or
a dozen Bohemian youths to be educated at the expense of the
prince and his mother. The scattered members of the Moravian
Church in Hungary, in the belief that the presence of the bishop in
that country would unify the interests of the brotherhood, also urged
him to accept the Transylvanian call, at the same time petitioning
the general synod to relieve Comenius of his clerical functions at
Lissa for a few years.
The Church granted the petition, and Comenius settled in Saros-
Patak, in May, 1650. He at once drew up a sketch of a seven-grade
school, which he published a year later under the title Plan of a
pansophic school. “In scope and breadth of view,” remarks a modern
historian, “the scheme was centuries in advance of its time, while
many of the suggestions which it contained are but imperfectly
carried into effect at the present day.”
The Plan is a detailed course of study with specific directions for the
application of the course for the use of teachers. In these directions
he explains the great danger of overworking the children; and to
avoid this, a rest-pause of a half-hour is provided after each hour’s
instruction for free, spontaneous play. After each meal a full hour’s
rest is granted. The pupils are to have eight hours of sleep; they are
granted a half-holiday on Sundays and Wednesdays, with fortnight
vacations at Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide, and a month’s
vacation in the summer. This gave a school year of forty-two weeks,
with thirty hours for school work in each week. The forenoon
instruction was as follows: From 6 to 7 o’clock, religious instruction,
including hymns, prayers, and Bible readings. From 7.30 to 8.30,
theoretical exposition of the new subject-matter of the day’s lesson;
and from 9 to 10, a practical treatment and review of the same.
There was music (and mathematics) in the afternoon from 1 to 2;
history from 2.30 to 3.30; and composition, with exercises in style,
from 4 to 5.
The Plan requires that the seven grades of the school meet in
separate rooms, and that a teacher be provided for each grade. In
each class, the text-books must be adapted to the capacities of the
children. The Vestibulum is the lowest class. Over the door of this
room is the motto, “Let no one enter who cannot read.” The room is
so decorated that the pictures illustrate the subjects taught in this
grade; and, by means of these illustrations, the senses are trained.
The pupils are taught short maxims containing the most important
rules of conduct, a few common Latin words, the elements of
arithmetic, the scales in music, and some short hymns and prayers.
Writing and drawing are also taught, and special attention is given to
the games of the children.
The Janual is the second class. The motto over the class-room door
of this grade is, “Let no one enter who is ignorant of mathematics.”
Provided the more common objects mentioned in the Janua cannot
be readily obtained, pictures of these objects are hung on the wall.
The text-books used are, besides the Janua, the Latin vernacular
dictionary and the Janual grammar. In composition, the pupils are
exercised in the structure of phrases, sentences, and periods; in
religion, they learn the catechism; in mathematics, addition and
subtraction and plane figures in geometry. There are more advanced
exercises in music; and, as in the preceding grade, the teachers are
urged to encourage the plays and games of the children.
The Atrial is the third class. Its motto is, “Let no one enter who
cannot speak.” Here Bible readings, in abridged form and suited to
the intelligence of the children, are begun. The text-book is the
Atrium, together with a grammar of eloquence and a Latin-Latin
dictionary. In arithmetic, the pupils master multiplication and
division, and in geometry, solid figures. The musical instruction
includes harmony and the rudiments of Latin verse. Famous deeds in
Biblical narrative furnish the basis of the historic instruction. In
composition there are exercises in style, consisting of paraphrasing
and the transposition of sentences. Before the pupils are permitted
to pass from this grade they must be able to read the Latin authors
readily and to converse in the Latin fluently.
The Philosophical is the fourth class, with the motto, “Let no one
who is ignorant of history enter here.” The walls are decorated with
pictures illustrative of arithmetic, geometry, and physics, and
connected with this class-room are a chemical laboratory and a
dissecting-room. The religious instruction includes hymns, Psalms,
an epitome of the New Testament, and a life of Christ. The text-book
is called the Palace of wisdom; in it the genesis of natural
phenomena are described. In mathematics, the pupils learn the rules
of proportion; they begin the study of trigonometry; also statics, and
instruction on musical instruments. Greek is begun, and the pupils
study natural history through Pliny and Ælian. Comenius mentions
that he does not consider Greek a difficult study; and he thinks it
need cause the pupils no alarm, since an exhaustive knowledge of
Greek is not required, and the difficulties of the study will be largely
overcome by the use of rational methods of teaching.
The fifth class is the Logical. Over the door is the inscription, “Let no
one enter who is ignorant of natural philosophy,” and the walls are
covered with the rules of logic. The pupils have a Bible manual and a
class-book on problems in philosophy. The problems include a survey
of things that have been and may be discovered by man; a formal
logic explaining the processes of reasoning, and a repertory of such
philosophical problems as present themselves to the human mind. In
arithmetic, the rules of partnership and allegation are studied; in
geometry, mensuration of heights and distances and plane surfaces;
in geography, a description of the earth; in astronomy, an account of
the heavens; in history, a survey of mechanical inventions. For the
formation of a literary style, such historians as Curtius, Cæsar, and
Justin are read. The study of Greek is continued, and Isocrates and
Plutarch are recommended for reading. Dramatic performances are
introduced in the fifth class. Grammar, logic, and metaphysics are
represented in conflict, but a reconciliation is finally effected through
study.
The sixth is the Political class. Its motto, “Let no one enter who
cannot reason.” Sallust, Cicero, Virgil, and Horace are read for style;
provision is made for verse writing; attention is given to geography
and the parts of astronomy dealing with the planets and the laws of
the eclipses; the Bible is read through; more advanced topics in
arithmetic and geometry are taken up; the special class-book studied
deals with human society and the laws of economics; in Greek the
pupils read from Thucydides and Hesiod. Dramatic performances are
continued, the degeneration and moral downfall of Solomon being
rendered.
The seventh and last grade of the course is the Philosophic. Its
motto is, “Let no one enter who is irreligious.” The instruction is of
an essentially theological character. On the walls are inscribed
numerous mystic symbols illustrative of the hidden wisdom of the
Holy Scriptures. The most devotional Psalms and church hymns are
used in the school exercises. There are readings from the Scriptures,
the works of the most inspired theologians and martyrs, and a
résumé of Christian beliefs, duties, and aspirations, all written in the
phraseology of the Bible. The text-book of the grade is ultra-religious
in character. It includes (1) an account of the earthly and heavenly
revelations of God; (2) a commentary for Scriptural reading; and (3)
a detailed account of the mysteries of salvation. In arithmetic, the
sacred and mystic numbers that occur in the Scriptures; in
architecture, the sacred structures as exemplified by Noah’s ark, the
tabernacle, and the Temple; in history, the general history of the
Church; and in ancient language, Hebrew takes the place of Greek—
this, that the students may be able to read and understand the
Scriptures in the original text. Oratory is studied that those who
become preachers may know how to address a congregation, and
that those who engage in politics may know how to reason with
their hearers.
Such is a condensed survey of the course of study which Comenius
devised for the schools at Saros-Patak; and in no small degree his
reputation as a reformer rests upon this piece of work. For the
Saros-Patak Plan became a model for educators in many lands, and
the progenitor of a long line of graded schemes of instruction which
constitute such an essential feature of the educational economy of
to-day. Not only were subjects of study graded in accordance with
the laws of the development of child-mind, but text-books were
graded as well. Moreover, the scheme made necessary the
employment of teachers who comprehended the character of the
work, and, more particularly, those with some appreciation of the
natural history of the child and the causes which condition its
growth. Little as Comenius understood psychology, at least in the
modern use of that term, he was alive to the fact that in childhood
the senses are keenest, and that the line of least resistance in the
acquisition of new impressions is through (1) objects, (2) pictures,
and (3) interesting verbal descriptions in the mother-tongue.
His labors at Saros-Patak terminated at the close of the fourth year,
during which time the first three grades of the Plan were organized.
All contemporary evidence confirms the success of the scheme.
Although so marked a departure from traditional educational
practices, it succeeded to a degree that must have been surprising
even to Comenius himself. The fact that the teachers in the schools
were trained under Comenius at Lissa did much, doubtless, to
remove otherwise possible frictions.
But careful gradation was not the only marked reform carried out at
Saros-Patak during this period. Pictures were introduced as aids in
teaching, and the first child’s picture book, the first of a long line of
books so popular in our own day, was written. This was the famous
Orbis pictus, to be discussed in a subsequent chapter.
Comenius returned to Lissa in 1654, to resume his ecclesiastical
labors. But his sojourn was brief; for, with the invasion of Poland by
the Swedes, came the fall and conflagration of the city. Comenius
escaped, “almost in a state of nudity,” to use his own words. He had
not only lost his property and his library in the conflagration, but he
had sustained a yet greater loss in the burning of his numerous
manuscripts, and, more important (to him) than all the others, his
entire pansophic work, on the composition of which he had labored
so arduously for many years. Writing to Montanus, he says, “The
loss of this work I shall cease to lament only when I cease to
breathe.” He escaped from Lissa to Silesia, where he found refuge
for a time in the home of a nobleman. He shortly afterward pushed
on to Frankfort, but not feeling secure here he moved to Hamburg,
where for two months he was prostrated by a severe illness.
 CHAPTER V
CLOSING YEARS: 1656–1670
Flight to Amsterdam—Reception by Lawrence de Geer—Religious freedom in
Holland—Publication of the complete edition of his writings—Other
educational activities—The “One thing needful”—Death at Amsterdam and
burial at Naärden—Family history of Comenius—Alleged call to the presidency
of Harvard College—Portraits—Personal characteristics.
During his last year’s residence at Saros-Patak, Comenius had
sustained a great loss in the death of his friend and former patron,
Lewis de Geer. In a funeral oration which he composed, he
characterized his benefactor as “a man pious toward God, just
toward men, merciful to the distressed, and meritoriously great and
illustrious among all men.” The rich Dutch merchant bequeathed his
estates to his son, Lawrence de Geer of Amsterdam; and not only
his estates, but also his deep interest in the welfare of the Moravian
reformer.
Learning of the severe illness of Comenius, Lawrence de Geer wrote
him to leave Hamburg and come directly to Amsterdam, where all
the needs of his closing years would be provided. The younger de
Geer, it would seem, had not only a real and profound affection for
the aged Comenius, but also a keen and intelligent interest in all his
schemes for educational reform.
Amsterdam proved, indeed, a haven of rest to the weary wanderer.
At this time the city enjoyed greater religious freedom than perhaps
any other city in Europe. Says Benham: “Comenius found himself in
the midst of a community then enjoying the largest amount of
religious toleration to be found anywhere in Europe, and with it a
great diversity of religious opinions. Unitarians expelled from their
own countries here united themselves to the friends of speculative
philosophy among the Remonstrants and Arminians; and the
philosophy of Descartes here found admirers even among the
members of the Reformed Church. The truly evangelical Comenius
had become known to many through his writings, which, together
with the influence of his patron’s son, Lawrence de Geer, who
continued his father’s benevolence, induced rich merchants to intrust
him with the education of their sons; so that, with the additions
accruing from his literary labors, Comenius found a supply of food
and raiment, and was thereby content.”
In spite of his advanced age, these closing years of his life at
Amsterdam were busy ones; for besides ministering to the needs of
the scattered and disheartened ecclesiastics of the Moravian
Brethren, he engaged somewhat in private teaching, and saw
through the press a complete edition of his educational writings. It
was a magnificent volume of more than a thousand pages, and was
printed by Christopher Cunard and Gabriel à Roy under the title All
the didactical works of J. A. Comenius.
The publication of this handsome folio, containing all his educational
writings, was made possible by the generosity of Lawrence de Geer.
The first part of the folio, written between 1627 and 1642, contains
(1) a brief narration of the circumstances which led the author to
write these studies; (2) the Great didactic, showing the method of
teaching all things; (3) the School of infancy, being an essay on the
education of youth during the first six years; (4) an account of a six-
class vernacular school; (5) the Janua; (6) the Vestibulum; (7) David
Vechner’s Model of a temple of Latinity; (8) a didactic dissertation on
the quadripartite study of the Latin language; (9) the circle of all the
sciences; (10) various criticisms on the same; (11) explanations of
attempts at pansophy.
The second part of the folio, written between 1642 and 1650,
contains (1) new reasons for continuing to devote attention to
didactic studies; (2) new methods of studying languages, built upon
didactic foundations; (3) vestibule of the Latin language adapted to
the laws of the most recent methods of language teaching; (4) new
gate of the Latin language exhibiting the structure of things and
words in their natural order; (5) a Latin and German introductory
lexicon explaining a multitude of derived words; (6) a grammar of
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookbell.com