〈Research Article〉

Practice makes perfect?
A review of second language teaching methods
Colin Thompson

Abstract
This article explores the role of practice within second language teaching. It begins by defining theterm and then reviews how practice has been applied throughout language teaching history. The
article then reports how skill acquisition theories have informed the use of practice within language
teaching methods. It then discusses how research in second language acquisition (SLA) have since
promoted modern approaches involving practice instruction. The final section then examines issues
regarding the implementation of these approaches within Asian educational contexts. Overall, thispaper shows how practice has been applied in different ways within language teaching, and that noone method appears superior. Consequently, it is useful for teachers to have an understanding of thepros and cons of each method so as to benefit their own teaching.
Key words: practice, skill acquisition, present-practice-produce, task-based learning

Introduction
As human beings, we generally consider skill learning to be an important process for improving ourself-worth. Whatever the skill, be it driving a car, using a computer or learning to swim, people haveto engage in practice in order to master skills. For example, Ericsson (2006) reported that skilledmusicians are known to have practiced for over 10,000 hours to reach expert level. Within the field of
second language learning, the importance of practice is no exception, the question is how practice canbe maximised to improve second language skills.
SLA research concerning the effects of practice is especially relevant within Asian educational
contexts where East Asian governments have recently expressed a desire to improve learners’ second
language (L2) speaking skills (Sakui, 2004). For example, since 2003, the Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Techonology (MEXT) in Japan have been calling for improvements inJapanese university learners’ English skills. MEXT was dissatisfied with traditional language learning
methods that focused heavily on grammar translation, writing and reading, and were not effective for－ 55 －

developing learners’ L2 oral skills. As a result, MEXT voiced the need for English instruction to focus
more on developing learners’ communication skills (Mochizuki and Ortega, 2008). Consequently,
English language courses at the university level in Japan began focusing more on improving learners’
use of English, whilst more communicative methods of instruction have been introduced inclassrooms (Thompson and Millington, 2012; Thompson and Jones, 2013).
The aim of this paper is to review communicative L2 teaching methods to determine how language
skills can be maximised through practice in the classroom. First, due to the significant amount ofresearch conducted on practice within SLA, it is important that we clarify what we mean by the term.
According to Dekeyser (2007), practice refers to ‘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). In other words, practice involves using some form of pedagogic activity to develop
learners’ knowledge, or their skill in an L2, in terms of reading, listening, writing or speaking. This
paper begins by providing an historical review of practice and how it has been used and evolved overtime within second language teaching. We then look at theories of skill acquisition from cognitive
psychology research that attempt to explain how skills in general are developed through practice. The
next section then discusses how skill acquisition theory has informed the role of practice within
second language teaching methodology. This follows on to examine how practice is used within
modern pedagogy by analysing task-based learning. The article then concludes by discussing theimplications of implementing modern teaching methods within Asian educational contexts.

The history of practice within language teaching
Language teaching methods first gained prominence in the eighteenth century (Dekeyser, 1998).
One of the first approaches, grammar translation simply involved translating the L2 into the learner’s
L1 using reading and writing exercises and the study of vocabulary lists. No attention was placed onpracticing or developing communication skills (Ellis and Shintani, 2014). During the mid-twentiethcentury, the audiolingual method became popular because it focused on developing L2 speaking skills(VanPatten, 1996). Audiolingualism considered repetition to be an important part of language learning.
The method typically involved learners, individually, practicing linguistic phrases in isolation, in an
attempt to memorize specific language features, and be able to produce them accurately.
In the 1970s, language teaching began placing more emphasis on developing communication skills,
as opposed to simply practicing grammatical features. Hymes (1972) introduced the notion ofcommunicative competence, arguing that learners should move beyond grammar practice to startpracticing communication functions, such as, asking and answering personal questions, apologizing
etc. As a consequence of this shift in method, teachers also began placing less emphasis on practising－ 56 －

for accuracy and instead began to encourage fluency practice. For example, learners were provided
with more communication activities to practice in pairs or groups, so as to produce more L2 output, atthe expense of accuracy (see for example, Prabhu, 1987).
Around the same time, other SLA researchers such as Krashin (1981) began disputing the need forspeaking practice as a means to acquire a second language. Instead, Krashin argued that learners
simply needed ample amounts of comprehensible language input, in the form of listening or reading,which would then facilitate L2 acquisition. In other words, if learners could be regularly exposed toL2 language, not too advanced from their current level, they should be able to naturally ‘pick up’ newfeatures which they could later use orally. Krashin’s claims then gave way to a debate in the field overwhich form of practice is more beneficial for language learning; productive practice involving
speaking, or receptive practice involving listening (Ellis and Shintani, 2014). Finally, since the 1990s,
more authentic, communicative language teaching approaches, such as task-based learning haveemerged that place an importance on learners performing ‘real-world’ tasks in classrooms (Dekeyer,2007). SLA researchers reported that traditional methods, such as audiolingualism involving thepractice specific sentences in isolation did not result in acquisition (Ellis, 1984). At this time,
Lightbown (1985) claimed that “practice does not make perfect” (1985: 177). Researchers argued thatfor acquisition to occur, learners had to practice using grammatical features in context, in other words,
using features for actual, communicative purposes. According to Lightbown (2000), ‘when ‘practice’is defined as opportunities for meaningful language use (both receptive and productive) and forthoughtful, effortful practice of difficult linguistic features, then the role of practice is clearly
beneficial and even essential’ (p. 443).
Looking back through the history of second language teaching, it is clear that practice has played an
important role within language learning, and has been applied in different ways. Language teachinghas placed an emphasis on grammatical sentence practice for accuracy, communicative task practicefor fluency, and arguments for listening practice vs speaking practice for acquisition. Given thevarious ways practice has been implemented within language teaching leads us to ask how it assists
language learning, and which method is most effective? The effects of practice have been explored for
decades within the field of cognitive psychology. The benefits of practice apply not only to language
learning but to most life skills in general. Cognitive research on skill learning, such as the widely
accepted Anderson et al.’s (2004) Adaptive Control of Thought – Rationale (ACT-R), are referred toas skill acquisition theories. The next section examines skill theory in detail.

－ 57 －

Skill acquisition theory
ACT-R theory has been refined for 25 years (see Anderson 1993, 1995; Anderson and Shunn,2000). It explains how individuals develop skills, in general, by processing knowledge. According toskill acquisition theory, knowledge of any skill can be categorized into two forms; declarative knowledge
and procedural knowledge. ‘Declarative knowledge is explicit knowledge that we can report and ofwhich we are consciously aware’ (Anderson 1995, p. 308). In terms of language, declarativeknowledge can be developed through explicit instruction of grammar rules. For example, a learnerreceiving instruction on the rules on 3rd person singular / plural. However, a learner with only
declarative knowledge may know the rules of an L2 but would struggle using the language inreal-time communication. Procedural knowledge, alternatively, ‘is knowledge of how to do things,
and it often implicit’ (Anderson, 1995 p. 308). In terms of language, this would involve a learnerhaving the ability to use the L2 fluently and proficiently. According to ACT-R, procedural knowledge
consists of units referred to as ‘productions’ which can be activated to perform cognitive actions
automatically, such as speaking. Productions are developed by accessing a learner’s declarativeknowledge to obtain information to carry out a cognitive function. For example, if a learner had torespond to a question in the L2, he or she would first have to think of a response, then choose thecorrect language to use, then finally articulate the response. According to ACT-R, once this function
has been performed, the production rules of that function can be called upon again and can eventually
be performed automatically, but this success depends on practice. Anderson and Fincham (1994)
reported that certain cognitive actions may have to be practised approximately 40 times to achieve
automatic performance (see figure 1).
Figure 1
Skill learning theory
Declarative knowledge(factual)→

Procedural Knowledge

Practice(automatic performance)

In short, skill acquisition theory stipulates that skills are learned by first acquiring declarativeknowledge which can then assist the development of procedural knowledge through practicing thechosen cognitive action. Skills can then reach automatic performance, in terms of speed and low error
rate through extensive practice. (For a more detailed account of skill theory, see Thompson (2018).

－ 58 －

Studies of skill acquisition learning
Anderson (1995) supported the claim of skill theory by reporting studies that investigated experts ofnumerous skills. Studies such as Simon and Gilmartin (1973 cited in Anderson 1995) claimed thatexpert chess players are required to know to up 50,000 rules of chess in order to compete at championshiplevel. Furthermore, Hayes (1985) examined geniuses of diverse fields from music to science, andreported that their work only reached a level of brilliance after approximately 10 years of practice.
These results gave weight to Anderson’s (1995) claim that skill acquisition appears to start withacquiring factual, declarative knowledge about the skill, and then through time and practice the skill
eventually can be performed proficiently (see figure 2).
Figure 2
Skill learning
Knowledge→(instruction)

Practice & time

↑ Skill proficiency

Research into the effects of practice have also found other variables, other than time, that influence
the process of knowledge transitioning from a declarative state to procedural skill. Ericson, Krampe
and Tesch-Romer (1993) reported the nature of practice can greater enhance the process to whichskills can be performed automatically. Their study examined students learning the violin at a music
school in Germany, and they found a correlation between the advanced violinists and the quality ofpractice undertaken. The advanced learners often practised during optimal times of the day when they
were feeling most alert, and this contributed to their enhanced skill. In addition, Ericsson at al. (1993)
noted the effects of practice can be improved by having learners who are motivated by receiving
feedback and instruction on their progress.
Dekeyser and Botana (2015) also note that the effects of language practice are limited to thespecific skill at hand. Dekeyser and Botana (2015) reviewed numerous studies conducted over the past
two decades that examined the effects of skill acquisition theory on language learning. The generalconsensus was that practice needs to be related to the targeted skill in order for improvements to occur.
For example, practice catered towards L2 speaking can result in improved speaking performance,
however, there are no transfer gains to other language skills, such as L2 writing. Dekeyser (2007)
attributes the skill-specific nature of practice to the development of procedural knowledge (outlined in
the previous section) which occurs only from accessing specific information related to the targetedskill from declarative knowledge. Thus, as the cognitive actions to speak in the L2 do not match theskills required to write, one form of practice will not lead to gains in the other skill.
－ 59 －Given the importance of ‘practice’ within the field of cognitive psychology for explaining skill
development, how important is the term within SLA research? Ellis (2008) and VanPattern (2004)
acknowledge the value of practice for automatizing L2 grammatical features, as well as the benefits ofpractice for improving pronunciation (Ellis, 1993). However, researchers are not convinced thatpractice alone is the means by which learners can acquire a second language. Ellis (2008) argues ‘it isdifficult to accept that the acquisition of all L2 features begins with declarative knowledge’ (p. 481).
In other words, do all features of a second language have to first be explicitly instructed to learners,
and then systematically practiced until each feature has been acquired? Ellis (2008) points to thesignificant amount language that learners can acquire incidentally, for example, studying aboard
where L2 language can be simply ‘picked up’ through interaction, and does not require extensive
practice.
Despite concern over the importance of practice within SLA research, practice as a means forlanguage learning is nevertheless widely used in various forms throughout the world. We now turn to
see the extent to which practice is used with foreign language teaching methods. We will look to see
how cognitive theories of skill acquisition discussed in the previous section correspond with theforeign language teaching methods summarised at the beginning of this paper.

Skill acquisition theories and second language teaching methods
As discussed earlier, skill acquisition theories consider knowledge to consist of a declarative(factual) form and a procedural (automatic) form. Skills are developed by declarative knowledge
assisting the development of procedural knowledge through practice. A language methodology close
in resemblance to skill acquisition theory is ‘present-practice-produce (PPP)’ (Ellis, 2003 p. 29). The
PPP method is considered to be the most widely used approach in second language textbooks acrossthe world (Ellis and Shintani, 2014). Language learning under PPP consists of three main stages, thefirst stage ‘present’ involves explicit instruction of a linguistic feature. For example, learners arepresented with a grammar feature such as English relative clauses, and then receive instruction about
the rules of the feature. The next stage, ‘practice’ would consist of a series of grammar exercises thatallow learners to practice the rules. Finally, ‘production’ usually involves some sort of communicative
activity, such as a role-play, that requires the use of the feature in context. The PPP procedure is
therefore designed to move from controlled practice to freer use of language features (see figure 3).

－ 60 －

Figure 3
Present-Practice-Production (PPP)
Present

Practice

Production(Instruction of(controlled exercises/(free language use/

language rule)

drills)communication task)

Dekeyser (2007) notes the similarities of PPP’s method with skill acquisition theory, as thepresentation stage resembles the declarative stage of skill learning where learners receive explicit
instruction about the skill. The practice stage then is comparable with facilitating procedural knowledge
as learners begin applying the rules they have learned for controlled use of the form. Finally,
production can be seen as learners automatizing their use of a targeted feature by using it fluently in acommunicative activity. Similar to skill theory, Dekeyser (2007) argues that the PPP procedure of
initial explicit instruction, followed by practice into freer communicative use is an effective formulafor L2 acquisition. Numerous studies have investigated the PPP method, testing a variety ofgrammatical features with speaking practice, and the results generally support the claims of skill
acquisition, in that learners could significantly improve their use of the forms through practice.
However, in line with skill theory, the practice effects do not transfer over to other skills.

Massed practice vs distributed practice
An issue that exists regarding the PPP approach is the time it takes for language features to beacquired and available for automatic use. Second language textbooks that follow PPP, often present alist of grammatical features in some particular order. Each item is then usually displayed on a page
and presented to learners through a three stage PPP sequence. However, it is unclear how much timeis needed for all this knowledge to become automatized. A number of factors can affect this process,for example, proficiency level, motivation, teacher feedback, learners’ affective filters etc. But evenwith all these variables constant, SLA researchers doubt whether language features can be masteredthrough PPP’s three stages in one lesson. As Lightbown (2002) notes, ‘research evidence shows that
communicative practice in the classroom, as valuable as it is, is not sufficient to lead learners to a highdegree of fluency and accuracy in all aspects of second language production’ (p. 443). If Lightbown’s
claim is true; that language proficiency cannot be achieved in the classroom, how then should
language courses be structured to maximise the effects of practice? Serrano (2011) examined theeffects of language learning practice over different periods of time. Using a pre- post-test design that
tested production and comprehension skills, intermediate level learners at a university in Barcelona
were placed into two groups, both receiving 110 hours of PPP related instruction. Once group－ 61 －

received ‘regular’ practice over 7 months involving 2 hour sessions, once a week. The other group
received ‘massed’ practice which resembled an intensive-style format held over 4.5 weeks involving 5hours sessions, five days a week. The results of the study showed significant improvements for theintermediate learners who received massed practice. The pedagogic implications of this study indicatethat massed practice involving multiple lessons scheduled over a short period of time may havegreater effect on language learning than classes spread out over a longer duration.
Conversely, the benefits of more ‘distributed’ practice over time can be found in Thompson’s(2014) study that examined Japanese intermediate learners’ use of English relative clauses. This
grammar point is known to be difficult for Japanese learners to produce (Mochizuki and Ortega, 2008).
As a result, communication tasks were designed to elicit relative clauses by having learners narrate
picture stories that required the use of the form. Students were required to complete two tasks a week
over a seven week period. The procedure followed a PPP related method that first involved explicit
instruction of the feature from the teacher, then each week, learners would attempt to complete thetasks using the target feature. The pre- post-test results showed significant gains in use of relative
clauses. As the study also reported significant gains from delayed tests conducted two weeks after theimmediate post-test suggests that regular, distributed practice could have benefits for long-term
retention of language features.
Despite the empirical research conducted on PPP studies, the approach along with skill acquisition
theory in general, have been labelled problematic by numerous SLA researchers as a form of language
instruction (see for example, Ellis, 2008; Ellis and Shintani 2014; VanPatten, 2004). SLA researchers
are quick to point out that second languages are not necessarily acquired through a process of explicit
instruction followed by extensive practice, and a significant of amount foreign language can beacquired incidentally, without the need for practice. Furthermore, Ellis (2003) argues ‘the problem
remains that presenting and practicing features learners have failed to use correctly in production may
not result in their acquisition if learners are not developmentally ready to acquire them’ (p. 30). In
other words, presenting a textbook to students with prescribed grammar features might not be the typeof language they currently need, or are ready to learn. Consequently, learners may forget structuresthat have been rigorously practiced.
Given the criticisms levelled at PPP, SLA researchers began investigating and promoting analternative method of second language teaching, one that does not pre-determine language features tobe taught (Bygate et al. 2001; Ellis, 2003; Long, 1996; Robinson, 2001; Willis, 1998). This method,termed ‘task-based learning’ facilitates learning through interaction with students learning from theirown mistakes. The following section discusses this method and the implications for practice in detail.

－ 62 －

Task-based learning
Task-based learning (TBL) is considered within SLA to be the forefront of modern pedagogy (Ellisand Shintani, 2014). The aim of TBL is to develop learners’ communication skills by having students
complete tasks. Numerous definitions have been put forward claiming what a task is, however, the one
by Bygate et al. (2001) is simple and concise, ‘a task is an activity which requires learners to use
language, with emphasis on meaning, to attain an objective’ (p.11). In other words, tasks requirelearners to interact with each other in the L2 in order to reach some sort of goal. For example,
deciding how to decorate a house with a fixed budget, or completing an information gap activity. The
emphasis on meaning relates to students using their own L2 ability to complete the task. A very
important component of TBL is that no explicit instruction is given about language to be used during atask. Only the task instructions are explained, the actual language needed to complete the task isdetermined by the learners. Students are, however, given planning time during the ‘pre-task stage’ inorder to think of what to say during the task. Willis and Willis (2007) note the rationale for notproviding language guidance relates to the importance of learners using their own linguistic resources
to complete tasks. For example, any communication difficulties a learner could face could beovercome by other learners in the group assisting or negotiating that learner’s intentions. In addition,
Ellis (2009) notes a key stage for learning in TBL occurs through teacher feedback during a task, aslearners are communicating. Specifically, the teacher corrects learner errors as they occur. Known as‘recasts’, correcting learners’ mistakes during natural communication is argued by TBL advocates tobe a more effective means of language learning than PPP and the instruction of pre-determinedlanguage (Ellis and Shintani, 2014) (see figure 4).
Figure 4.
Task-based learning (TBL)
Pre-task

Task

Post-task(Task instruction /(student communication /(task completion /planning time)teacher recasts)

corrective feedback)In terms of the role of practice within TBL, Dekyeser (2010) notes that language features are notsystematically practiced (as in the case with PPP), but that tasks themselves could be repeated bylearners, thus serving as a form of practice. Dekeyser (2015) later reported that task repetition canserve to fine tune learners’ linguistic skills, as each repetition can further assist the automatization of
L2 communication skills. Empirical studies into the effects of task sequencing have yielded positive
results in terms of L2 fluency (see for example, Bygate, 2001; Lambert et al, 2016). According to－ 63 －

Bygate (2001), task repetition assists L2 fluency because the cognitive work of the first performance,in terms of thinking about what to say, tends to be stored in the learner’s memory on the subsequent
performance. This information can then be accessed at a quicker rate during subsequent repetitions
which allows the learner to communicate faster resulting in improved performance. However, similar
to skill theory, Ellis (2009) notes that practice effects of task repetition are also task specific, in thatgains in one task-type, for example, deciding the ending of a story, do not transfer to improved
performance of another task-type, for example, completing an information-gap activity.
Although tasks can be practiced and repeated to boost L2 fluency, a drawback of this method is thatlearners could soon lose interest in repeating the same or similar task. Another issue relates to howtasks can push learners’ linguistic repertoire beyond fluency, in the form of speed, but also to develop
their use of complex L2 language, for example, use of more advanced grammatical features. Robinson(2011) attempted to address these issues by providing a framework for practicing tasks that increase incomplexity, termed the Cognition Hypothesis. The Cognition Hypothesis involves learners performing
slightly different tasks that become more difficult by ‘having learners perform tasks simple on all the
relevant parameters of task demands first, and then gradually increasing their cognitive complexity on
subsequent versions’ (p. 242). For example, in terms of being able to give directions in the L2, a task
could involve giving directions using a map that contains little detail, thus requiring basic language
use to complete the task. Learners could then progress to giving directions using complex maps withlots of detail that would require more complex grammatical structures and vocabulary. Teachers could
then provide feedback during each task performance by correcting learner mistakes. Empirical studies
reporting the effects of tasks sequenced according to the Cognition Hypothesis can be found in Baralt
et al. (2014).
In conclusion, we have seen that the TBL method contrasts quite differently with PPP in that TBL
provides no language guidance before leaners carry out tasks. Instead, learners are encouraged to use
their own L2 knowledge to collaborate together to complete tasks. Instead of learning occurring at thefirst stage of the method (as with PPP) learning occurs during task performance by correcting learner
mistakes (see figure 5).
Figure 5
Present-practice-production (PPP) vs Task-based learning (TBL)
Present

Practice

Production

Language

ExerciseCommunication

Instruction

Practice

Activity－ 64 －

Pre-task

Task

Post-task

Planning time

Learner communication /Corrective feedback

Teacher feedback
The following section discusses the pros and cons of these approaches within an Asian language
learning context.

Issues implementing communicative teaching methods
As we have seen, SLA researchers clearly favour skills-based teaching approaches, such as PPP and
TBL that look to develop learners’ L2 communication skills. Studies that have tested these approaches
have found that activities, such as tasks, can not only develop learners’ L2 skills in terms of fluency
and accuracy, but that also teachers and Asian learners consider this form of learning to be
motivational (Thompson and Blake (2009); Thompson and Jones (2013). However, there are anumber of practical issues with successfully implementing communicative methods within Asian
educational contexts, particularly with attempts at improving students’ L2 speaking skills (Ellis, 2009).
For example, Carless’ (2004) study (cited in Ellis, 2009) reported issues concerning a TBL course at
an elementary school in Hong Kong. As the learners’ proficiency level was low, they did not havesufficient L2 ability to complete tasks, and as a result, little L2 speech was produced, whilst teachersof the program also appeared to lack the training required to instruct a skills-based course effectively.
Thus, within an Asian context, it appears that communicative teaching methods require students tohave a certain amount of L2 knowledge, in terms of grammar and vocabulary, in order for learners to
be able to perform communicative tasks. Second, teachers (whether they are native or non-native
speakers of English) must also have the required education to be able to design courses to meet theneeds of their learners, and be able to instruct these courses effectively.
In addition, there are also hierarchical obstacles that hinder the implementation of modern
communicative teaching methods, as Ellis (2009) notes that ‘educational systems in many parts of theworld place the emphasis on knowledge-learning rather than skill development’ (p. 242). For example,
in Japan, university entrance exams test English knowledge, not skills. These exams focus ongrammar and reading rather than speaking. Moreover, at the university level, TOEIC is considered ameasure of students’ English proficiency and is considered very important for students’ careerprospects. Yet as TOEIC generally focuses on English knowledge rather than speaking skills, it isunderstandable why teachers would want to focus their efforts on the requirements of tests, rather thandeveloping students’ communication skills (Mochizuki and Ortega, 2008). Consequently,
communicative methods such as TBL and PPP may not be desirable for teachers to use compared with－ 65 －

grammar translation that focuses more on L2 knowledge and memorization of language rules. In short,
we can see that language course designers and teachers are therefore under pressure to teach for tests,
as well as for communication skills, as outlined earlier by MEXT.
Another problem facing TBL and PPP relates to large class sizes (Ellis, 2009). As students performtasks in groups, it is problematic for a teacher to encourage L2 use and give feedback when dealing
with multiple groups simultaneously performing tasks. However, Thompson and Millington’s (2012)
study showed that by allocating tasks that are slightly different in design or storyline, to each group,
then having each group present the outcome of their task to the class as a whole, encourages learners
to use the L2. Also, by assigning roles to certain students as a group leader, can further encouragelearner L2 interaction.
Finally, Ellis (2009) points out cultural issues that could affect successful implementation ofcommunicative teaching methods within Asian contexts. As we have seen, TBL is centred aroundlearner interaction and learner autonomy in the classroom. This teaching approach may conflict withmore traditional learning practices where respect between the teacher and the student is paramount,and consequently, instruction is expected to be teacher-led, without necessarily involving learnercollaboration. Thus, language methods such as grammar translation that do not involve learnerinteraction may be a better fit with such cultural, educational values. In short, although modern
teaching methods seem justified in terms of fostering students’ L2 communication skills, a number ofpractical and possibly cultural issues exist that could hinder successful implementation of skills-based
language courses.

Conclusion
This article has reviewed the role of practice within different language teaching methods todetermine how best practice can be applied in the classroom. We have seen how theoretical models ofskill learning have informed second language teaching. Findings from cognitive psychology researchand SLA research suggest that language learning can be maximised through deliberate practice bystudying at optimal times of the day, and by receiving regular feedback on performance. There is alsoa case that intensive practice, involving longer periods of study over shorter spaces of time, is more
beneficial than shorter periods of study over a longer time duration. In addition, we have seen how
SLA research has promoted the use of communicative teaching methods for developing learners’
language skills but that a number of factors serve as an obstacle for successful program implementation.
As a result, given that each learner’s needs are different, and that a single, unified teaching method
does not exist within SLA, it seems best to apply practice using a variety of approaches throughout thedifferent levels of a learner’s L2 proficiency.
－ 66 －

References
Anderson. J. 1993. Rules of the Mind. Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Anderson, J. 1995. Learning and Memory: An Integrated Approach. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Anderson, J. R. 2000. ‘Implications of the ACT-R Learning Theory. No Magic Bullets’ in Glaser, R. (eds.)
Advances in Instructional Psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 1-27.
Anderson. J and Fincham. J. 1994. ‘Acquisition of procedural skills from examples’, Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognihtion 20 (6): 1322-1340.
Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., and Qin, Y. 2004. ‘An integrated theory of
the mind’, Psychological Review 111 (4): 1036-1060.
Baralt. M., Gilabert. R. and Robinson, P. 2014. Task Sequencing and Instructed Second Language Learning.
London: Bloomsbury.
Bygate, M. 2001. ‘Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language’, in Bygate, M, Skehan,
P. and Swain, M. (eds.), Researching Pedagogic Tasks. Second Language Learning and Testing. Harlow:
Longman, 23-49.
Dekeyser, R. M. 1998. ‘Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second
language grammar’, in Doughty, C. and Williams, J. (eds.) Focus on Form in Second Language Acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 42–63.
Dekeyser, R. M. 2007. ‘Introduction: situating the concept of practice’, in Dekeyser, R. M. (eds.), Practice in a
Second Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–18.
DeKeyser, R. 2010. ‘Practice for Second Language Learning: Don't Throw out the Baby with the Bathwater’,International Journal of English Studies 10 (1): 155-165.
Dekeyser, R. M. 2015. ‘Skill Acquisition Theory’, in VanPatten, B, and Williams. J. (eds.) Theories in Second
Language Acquisition. Routledge. 94-112.
Dekeyser, R. M. and Botana, G. P. 2015. ‘The effectiveness of processing instruction in L2 grammar acquisition:a narrative review’, Applied Linguistics 36 (3): 290-305.
Ellis, R. 2003. Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. 2008. The Study of Second Language Acquisition (Second Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. 2009. ‘Task-based language teaching: sorting out the misunderstandings’, International Journal ofApplied Lingustics 19 (3): 221-246.
Ellis, R. and Shintani, N. 2014. Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research.
Routledge.
Ericsson, K. A. 2006. ‘The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert
performance’, in Ericsson, K. A, Charness, N., and Feltovich, P. J, and Hoffman, R. R. (eds.) The
Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
－ 67 －

685-706.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., and Tesch-Romer, C. 1993. ‘The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition ofexpert performance’, Psychological Review 100: 363-406.
Hayes, J. R. 1985. ‘Three problems in teaching general skills’, in Segal, J, Chipman, S and Glaser, R. (eds.)
Thinking and learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 391-405.
Hymes, D. 1972. On communicative competence, in Pride, J. B., and Holmes, J. (eds.). Sociolinguistics.
Harmondsworth: Penguin, 269-293.
Krashen, S. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Lambert, C, Kormos, J, and Minn, D. 2016. ‘Task repetition and second language speech processing’, Studies inSecond Language Acquisition 1-30.
Lightbown, P. 1985. Great expectations: second language acquisition research and classroom teaching. Applied
Linguistics 6 (2): 173-189.
Lightbown, P. 2000. Anniversary article. Classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied
Linguistics 21 (4): 431-462.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). (2003). Regarding the Establishmentof an Action Plan to Cultivate “Japanese with English Abilities”. Retrieved fromhttp://www.mext.go.jp/english/topics/03072801.htm
Mochizuki, N., & Orgtega, L. 2008. Balancing communication and grammar in beginning level foreign classrooms.
Language Teaching Research 12 (11) 11-37.
Prabhu, N. S. 1987. Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Robinson, P. 2010. ‘Situating and distributing cognition across task demands: The SSARC model of pedagogic
task sequencing’, in Putz. M and Sicola. L. (eds.), Inside the Learner’s Mind: Cognitive Processing in
Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 243-268.
Robinson, P. 2011. Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learningand performance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sakui, K. 2004. Wearing to pairs of shoes: language teaching in Japan. ELT Journal 58, (2): 155-163.
Serrano, R. 2011. ‘The time factor in EFL classroom practice’, Language Learning 61 (1): 117-145.
Simon, H. and Gilmartin, K. 1973. ‘A simulation of memory for chess positions’, Cognitive Psychology 5: 29-46.
Thompson, C. 2014. ‘The effects of guided planning, task complexity and task sequencing on L2 oral production’,in Baralt. M., Gilabert. R., and Robinson. P, (eds.) Task Sequencing and Instructed Second Language
Learning. London: Bloomsbury, 123-148.
Thompson, C. 2018. ‘The role of practice within second language acquisition’, in Jones. C, (eds.) Practice inSecond Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 30-52.
Thompson, C., & Millington, N. 2012. Task-based learning for Communication and Grammar Use. Language
Education in Asia 3 (2): 159-167.
－ 68 －

Thompson, C., & Jones, C. 2013. Aims and Outcomes. The Asian EFL Journal 66: 28-42.
VanPatten, B. 1996. Input Processing and Grammar Instruction. Ablex Publishing Corporation.

－ 69 －