z

'
CO

Abstract

This paper discusses what cognitive psychology has to say about the acquisition of

skilled behavior and teaching a foreign language. This paper considers the automization

of skills and what this means for improving students' oral production skills. Classroom

strategies for incorporating skill-based theory into the classroom are also discussed.

Skill Acquisition and Second Language Teaching

This paper's primary concern is the foreign language classroom and improving

students' oral production skills. It will begin, however, with a discussion of what

cognitive psychology has to say about skill acquisition. Most of this paper will discuss the

automization of skills and its importance to language teaching. Pedagogical possibilities

and strategies for the language classroom will also be discussed.

Cognitive Psychology and Skill Acquisition

Theoretical developments in the field of cognitive psychology have yielded

important insights into the nature of skill acquisition. These theories conceptualize skill

learning as a multi-stage cognitive process. Schneider and Shiffrin (1977) distinguish

two cognitive stages in all skill acquisition processes: controlled processes and automatic

processes. In their view. any complex cognitive skill is first learned through repetition
and then through practice becomes an automatic and attention-free processes. Controlled

processes remain under the "control" of the learner and usually require a large amount
of processing capacity and more time for activation. Automatic processes, in contrast,

are quick and demand relatively little processing capacity.

One of the leading specialists in the study of skills acquisition is Dr. J. R. Anderson.

Over the last twenty-five years, Dr. Anderson created a theory of cognition that is

specific enough to be simulated by a computer. By using this simulation he has been

Skill Acquisition and Second Language Teaching 119

pQ

ff able to understand the way in which humans organize and relate knowledge to skilled

behavior. In Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications (1995), Anderson argues that

acquiring a skill is a function of the automaticity of operating processes. He divides these

)1)
processes into three stages: the cognitive, the associative, and the autonomous. In the
cognitive stage, learners memorize a set of facts relevant to the skill. He calls these facts

declarative knowledge. Students learn these facts the first time that they perform the

skill. In the associative stage, the connections among the elements required for successful

performance are strengthened; errors are detected and eliminated. In the autonomous
stage, the learners perform the skill better, more rapidly, and more automatically.

Learners have converted declarative knowledge into what Anderson calls procedural

knowledge, which requires less processing capacity. Anderson (1995) says, "it is the

procedural, not the declarative, knowledge that governs the skilled performance" (p.
274).

Anderson's model breaks down the process of skill acquisition into three stages:

(1) acquiring declarative knowledge, (2) learning the proceduralization of knowledge,

and (3) acquiring procedural knowledge. Declarative knowledge is factual knowledge, for

example knowing that the car one is driving has three gears, or knowing that all English

verbs take an -s in the third person of the present tense when the subject is singular.

The proceduralization of knowledge encodes behavior. It consists of condition-action pairs

that state what is to be done under certain circumstances. Fully automized procedural

knowledge means, for instance, that one uses a third person -s for singular verbs without

having to think about it.

Learners in this final stage of skill acquisition might or might not lose the

declarative knowledge of the rule. An embarrassing example of this happened recently

when the author was asked a frequently used telephone number which he could not

remember until he looked at a telephone and pretended to place a call to the number.

This is analogous to native speakers of a language - who have procedural knowledge of

it - but do not have the declarative knowledge, for instance, a knowledge of the rules of

grammar.
The important thing, however, is not whether one loses declarative knowledge ,

but how one moves from exclusively declarative knowledge to procedural knowledge.

120
 R.)
0
0

z
What matters here is that proceduralization is achieved by engaging in the target -
03
behavior or procedure while temporarily leaning on the declarative crutches (Anderson,

1987, pp. 204-205). For example, in driving a car, after learning about the gears, where

they are and how the clutch works (declarative knowledge), keeping this knowledge

in mind while practicing driving allows for the restructuring of this knowledge . In this

way declarative knowledge is proceduralized; that is, elements are combined into larger

chunks that reduce the working memory load. Once this crucial stage in skill acquisition

has been reached, automization of the newly acquired procedural knowledge becomes

a function of more practice, which increases speed and accuracy while reducing the

demand on cognitive resources.

The Declarative/Procedural Distinction

The distinction between declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge is that

between "knowing that" and "knowing how," a distinction that most language teachers

recognize. That is, most teachers have accepted that knowing English grammar is not

the same as using it correctly. To illustrate this distinction in the context of language

learning, Johnson (1996) uses the example of the rules for the formation of the present

perfect tense. Declarative knowledge tells us that to form the present perfect tense, part
of the verb "have" is followed by the past participle, and the past participle is formed by

adding "ed" to the stem form. Learners using their declarative knowledge hold all this

knowledge in memory and apply it each time they are required to use the tense.

This kind of knowledge has both advantages and disadvantages. For taking tests

and for writing, having such a database of rules is necessary. The great disadvantage

of this knowledge, however, is that it is slow. Using declarative knowledge precludes

spontaneous conversation.

Procedural knowledge has the advantage of speed. Knowledge is embedded in

procedures for action, or as Johnson (1996) says, "In computing terms, learners have a
"program"
which tells them that the present perfect of work (third singular) is "he has
worked." Whenever the form is required, there it is readily to hand" (p. 82). This kind

of knowledge is fast enough for conversation but has its own disadvantages. The perfect

example of the problems of having purely procedural knowledge is a student who had

Skill Acquisition and Second Language Teaching 121

r:31

tli3 spent several years in the United States as a child. Although her vocabulary was limited,

some aspects of her speech were near native; she was the top student in the class.
Yet during a writing task, she asked the author how to spell "gonna." When the author
)1)
explained that it was better to write out "going to" she was surprised. She had not

realized that "gonna" was a colloquialism of "going to."

Such limited knowledge is obviously undesirable and gives us reason to consider

Anderson's model. Beginning with the establishment of declarative knowledge,

Anderson's model progresses, through practice, to procedural knowledge, thereby

ensuring a more complete language mastery. That is to say, given the task-related

differences between declarative and procedural knowledge, a learning model that

provides both declarative and procedural knowledge is the most advantageous. And since
the vast majority of English students have not acquired procedural knowledge of English,

Anderson's model presents a logical path for the foreign language teacher to follow.

Anderson's model is also consistent with the current calls for a return to an emphasis on

linguistic form in SLA (see Long & Robinson, 1998).

Automization and Skill Acquisition

From the Greek, automatos, which means "self-acting," the concept of automization

has become a focus of cognitive psychology, especially in the context of cognitive skills

acquisition. Indeed, Shiffrin and Dumais (1981) call it a "fundamental component of

skill development" (p. 111). When a skill is newly learned, its performance takes up a

great deal of conscious attention. Novice drivers, to return to this example, will only be
able to change gears if they concentrate on changing gears. To become skilled drivers,

however, they must be able to attend to what is happening both in the car and on the

road, but this can only be accomplished if "lower order" skills - like changing gears -

have been automated. When drivers automate gear changing, they are able to perform

the action without even being aware that they are doing it. The role of automization in

skill learning, then, is to free one's attention for tasks which require it. As Huey (1968)

notes: "repetition progressively frees the mind from attention to details ... and reduces
the extent to which consciousness must concern itself with the process" (p. 108).

Schneider and Fisk (1983) explain the mechanisms of skill acquisition by

122
 ro
0
0

z
contrasting automatic and controlled types of cognitive processing:
CA)

Automatic processing is a fast, parallel, fairly effortless process which is not

limited by short-term memory capacity, is not under direct subject control and

performs well-developed skilled behaviors. Automatic processing typically develops

when subjects deal with the stimulus consistently over many trials ... Controlled

processing is characterized as a slow, generally serial, effortful, capacity limited,

subject controlled processing mode that must be used to deal with novel or

inconsistent information (p. 120).

The automization of a skill, then, is the ability to get things right when no attention

is available for getting them right. Most of us have been urged by athletic coaches, piano

teachers, or high school typing teachers to do something "until it's automatic."

Skills Acquisition Theory and SLA

The application of skills acquisition to second language teaching faces a several

theoretical hurdles. For example, it goes right to the heart of controversies over how

language learning occurs. Some language and cognition researchers follow the thinking

of Chomsky (1988) who contends there is a special mental faculty, a language acquisition

device, for language acquisition. According to this view, language develops in specialized

modules that are discontinuous from the rest of the mind. The acquisition of language,

therefore, should be treated as significantly if not totally different from the acquisition of

other skills.

On the other side of this complex debate are those who claim that language

learning is based on what Elizabeth Bates (1994) calls, "a relatively plastic mix of neural

systems that also serve other functions" (p. 1). Skill acquisition-based theory rejects the

idea that language is both unique and uniquely acquired. Anderson (1995) claims: "little
direct evidence exists to support the view that language is a unique system" (p. 280).

Other theoretical issues are involved in applying skill acquisition theory to SLA.

Tonkyn (1996) points out that skill acquisition theory fails to explain some parts of the

language learning process. Why do learners tend to acquire some forms before others, for

Skill Acquisition and Second Language Teaching 123

 siACS
13Z
1=
f13 example, and why does the influence of the first language (L1) on the second language

(L2) vary? These issues indicate that learning language is not the same as learning

)1) other skills. Johnson (1996) , however, argues that language fits the commonly accepted

definition of a skill. In Language Teaching and Skill Learning, he reviews the evidence

and argues that both declarative and procedural knowledge are part of language

competence. Following Anderson's model, he postulates that automization is as crucial in

language learning as in other skills, and that there is not much that is "incompatible with

a general learning theory account of second language" (p. 75).

Another theoretical hurdle facing skill acquisition theory and its application to

SLA is the distinction Stephen Krashen (1982) makes between language learning and

language acquisition. Krashen holds these two realms as separate and states that the

traditional concept of automization of consciously learned rules is wrong because it

implies that learned knowledge can become acquired knowledge (p. 82). Krashen (1982)

also argues that grammar cannot be taught explicitly because the learner cannot use

explicit rules efficiently during communication. This goes against cognitive psychologists

like Anderson who claim that declarative knowledge, facts we learn , can be automated

(procedural knowledge).
This brings another relevant issue into our discussion: the controversy over implicit

and explicit learning. According to DeKeyser (1998) , "the vast majority of publications

... support the idea that some kind of focus of form [explicit intervention] is useful . He

suggests that it is not only important to distinguish between kinds of learning (explicit

and implicit) but also between kinds of rules , and he draws on the skill acquisition theory

of Anderson to suggest that instructional intervention can facilitate the acquisition of

declarative knowledge. He qualifies this statement , however, by pointing out that explicit

teaching will be useful "to some extent, for some forms , for some students, at some point

in the learning process" (p. 42).

This is not a definitive position in favor of explicit learning , and DeKeyser

acknowledges that no clear criteria exist that details what should be taught implicitly and

what should be taught explicitly, and when. The research results , in fact, are conflicting

and the efficacy of implicit versus explicit learning varies according to the nature of the
rule, the structure, and the student. A detailed examination of this argument is beyond

124
 ICJ

0 z
the scope of this paper, but for our purposes it is important to note that DeKeyser (1998)

insists that even though the issues surrounding what and when explicit teaching is best

employed remain unresolved; "implicit second language learning and learning as it takes

place according to contemporary cognitive-psychological views on skill acquisition are

not incompatible" (p. 57).

Age also becomes a consideration in the discussion of skill acquisition, because the

Critical Period Hypothesis suggests that there is a time in human development when

the brain is predisposed for success in language learning, or in Krashen's terminology,

"
acquisition." Developmental changes in the brain, it can be argued, change the nature

of second language learning in post-puberty students. According to this view, language

learning that occurs after the end of the critical period may not be based on the innate

structures believed to contribute to first language acquisition in early childhood. Rather,

older learners depend on more general learning abilities - the same ones they might use

to learn other kinds of skills (Lightbown and Spada, 1997, p. 42).

SLA research is trying to find explanations for these differences. Someday, no

doubt, we will understand the nature of language and its relation to other skills. Future

researchers may provide us with a taxonomy of what is best taught implicitly and when

explicit intervention is warranted. Until then, teachers should prepare for all possibilities,

which brings us to a discussion of the ways in which classroom activities can facilitate

the automization of language.

Language teaching that emphasizes the acquisition of skills is not a radical

departure from what most teachers are currently doing. As DeKeyser (1998) says, skill

acquisition theory "is not a blueprint for a new language teaching method" (p. 63). It

is not a change of direction, but an extension of current SLA approaches. Skill learning

is compatible with the communicative approach to language teaching and Littlewood

(1992) even places it within the communicative approach. The kinds of activities that are
conducive to skill acquisition are already present in the communicative classroom. Skill

acquisition theory is just another lens through which we can explore what we do.

Armed with this characterization of skill-based theory, we can now consider the

integration of skill acquisition into the classroom.

Skill Acquisition and Second Language Teaching 25

pQ

Practice

DeKeyser (1998) claims that as far as traditional language teaching methods go,

practice does not make perfect. He contends that most methodologies have ignored the
basics of skill acquisition and are, therefore, doomed to only partial success. He claims

that most current and past methods conceive of practice in a way that is incompatible

with contemporary skill theory. Early practitioners, using the Grammar Translation

Method, for example, were not even interested in the automization of their students'

productive skills. Later, structurally-based methods went too far the other way and
tried to instill behaviors (proceduralize knowledge) through mechanical drills before the

requisite declarative knowledge was established. More communicative methodologies

were better, he goes on, but tended to lack sufficient declarative knowledge, ignored the

importance of error correction to help establish declarative knowledge, and placed too

much weight on structures, but not enough on truly meaningful communication. Indeed,

with the introduction of the communicative approach, there appeared a strong tendency

to overlook linguistic forms and to downplay the teaching of grammar. This, according to

DeKeyser (1998) ignored the importance of establishing declarative knowledge.

This is not to say that skill-based learning is totally new and unrelated to the

methods that teachers currently use in the classroom. What DeKeyser is claiming -

based on Anderson's theory - is that proceduralization is achieved by engaging in the

target behavior while temporarily leaning on declarative crutches (Anderson, 1987, p.

204). Repeated behaviors of this kind allow the restructuring of declarative knowledge.

The knowledge is proceduralized, so there is less load on working memory (DeKeyser,

1998, p.49). Once this critical point is reached, he says, strengthening, fine-tuning, and

automizing the skill becomes a function of practice. For DeKeyser this practice is crucial

but has been treated in a lopsided manner. Teaching methodologies, in other words, have
focused either on declarative knowledge at the expense of procedural knowledge or vice

versa.

Establishing Declarative Knowledge

Implementing a methodology that is consistent with skill acquisition theory means

126
 0

z
anchoring the relevant knowledge solidly in the student's mind at the outset. This can
Co
best be done by giving ample exposure to the material to be learned and making sure

the students have time to develop, test and refine this knowledge. Explicit teaching will

result in maximum understanding, and since errors are common at this stage they should

be corrected. In addition, the students should not be rushed or expected to participate in

activities that only bore them. Gatbonton and Segalowitz (1998) advocate communicative

activities that make learners repeat the same expressions and formulas. Telling the same

story over and over, for example, makes learners draw on the rules of grammar without

the disadvantage of divorcing form from meaning.

Avoiding boredom is not the same as avoiding drills. DeKeyser (1998) argues that
"
communicative drills" are an indispensable part of second language instruction. Drills,

when chosen carefully, are a valuable way of establishing declarative knowledge. In

distinguishing mechanical, meaningful, and communicative drills, Dekeyser (1998) claims,

"it i
s quite all right to have drills ... but they should be defined in terms of communicative

behavior" (p. 55).

Mechanical drills, which DeKeyser advises against, can be performed without

paying any attention to meaning. An example of this would be the transformation from "I
ate an apple. What did I eat?" to "You ate an apple." Meaningful drills, which DeKeyser

sees as more valuable than mechanical drills but not as beneficial as communicative

drills, require the student to process meaning. For example, "Is this a pen or a pencil?" "It

is a pen." Communicative drills, those that DeKeyser claims are the most important for

instilling declarative knowledge, require the student to convey content unknown to the

hearer, for example, "What did you do last night?" "I studied."

Johnson (1996) devotes a chapter of Language Teaching and Skill Learning to the
consideration of declarative knowledge. In that chapter he emphasizes activities involving
"form -defocus ." In these activities, the learner has to cope with increasing cognitive

demands which allow less and less attention to be devoted to form (pp. 127-130). His

argument is that while students may be able to "perform" correctly in a classroom

drill, they falter when they cannot give the task their complete attention. Making the

skill automatic, however, will ensure that the learner performs the task correctly while

conveying the message as quickly as possible or while thinking of other things.

Skill Acquisition and Second Language Teaching 127

 AQ

Johnson adds that classroom activities that push learners to de-focus are of proven
benefit. His model of language teaching, then, is "ra-1," where ra stands for "required

I )1) attention" and -1 indicates that "we consistently put learners in a position where they

have less attention available (one unit less) than they actually need to perform a task

easily. In these terms, the desired state of automization may be defined as the condition

in which the ra needed to undertake a given skill = 0" (p. 139).

To accomplish this, Johnson (1982) advocates the use of common activities like
"fi
nd the differences" and memory games which direct attention away from the form

being practiced. In these exercises, learners have pictures of the same scene , or pictures

with a few differences. The students question each other in order to find out what the

differences are or to see what their partners can remember about the picture . What

Johnson likes about these exercises is that the information gap forces the learners to
think about something other than the language. In the memory game, for example , the

student is spending more energy trying to remember than on thinking about grammar .

Johnson's characterization of these exercises, then, is not "message-focus" but "form-

defocus."

Another way to establish declarative knowledge is to incorporate the four skills -

reading, writing, listening and speaking - into lesson plans . In this way the teacher can

encourage students to practice a certain structure in different ways without boring

them. The teacher can introduce the target language or structure through listening and

speaking activities that are practiced until the students have full comprehension . They

can give oral presentations or perform role-plays using the target structure . These skills

are then reinforced through reading and writing exercises, either by adding details or
by personalizing the content. By following this four-skills path , students can practice
communication in ways that provide the type of repetition that will develop their skills

without subjecting them to rote repetition.

Error correction is an essential element of Anderson's model . DeKeyser (1998,

p. 55) notes the importance of error correction to the development of declarative
knowledge, and Johnson (1996, pp. 121-123) considers the issue in detail . These views,

of course, are contrary to "acquisition based" approaches to language teaching (like

Krashen's) that view error correction as a waste of time . Such "naturalistic approaches"

128
 RD
0
0

hold that L2 acquisition is similar to Ll acquisition and use the classroom to approximate z NN,J
.
co
the conditions which hold in L 1 acquisition. The author believes that such views are

utopian and ignore the fact that learners, particularly foreign language learners , do not

get sufficient exposure to the language to rely on natural language acquisition processes.
Yoshimura (2000) agrees, asserting that skill-based learning theory is particularly

appropriate for the foreign language class:

... it is very difficult to expect and wrong to assume that incidental learning will

automatically occur in the FL [foreign language] setting . To achieve a target

proficiency in FL learning, a systematic and efficient learning environment should

be created intentionally in the language classrooms . AT [automaticity theory] can

suggest ways for teachers to achieve such an environment . (P. 4)

Proceduralizing Declarative Knowledge

According to the Anderson (1995) model, the associative stage is where learners

coordinate the elements needed to translate declarative knowledge to procedural

knowledge. To do this, learners must perform the skill while keeping the relevant

knowledge in mind, so that they are eventually able to use the skill without having to

refer back to the initial knowledge. This is a critical point in learning , but one that is

often neglected in language learning. Yoshimura (2000) claims:

Too many of our language learners never develop skills to the point where they

can perform more integrative and complex tasks of language use ... They need

to free up their cognitive and memory resources by becoming more automatic and

efficient at certain elements of processing in order to devote their mental resources

to more involved, more complex tasks of real communication (p. 3).

In short, students need to practice tasks until they have achieved automaticity .

After practicing distinct skills, learners then need to practice more integrative, less

framed tasks. In so doing, they will learn how to balance their attention span , and their

cognitive resources can be reserved for more complex tasks.

Skill Acquisition and Second Language Teaching 129

f-E ACS

4'1
13Z
ffJ

To put this in the terms Johnson (1996) uses, the students must de-focus on the

language form they are trying to use. Automizing language is the ability to understand

others and express oneself appropriately without having to pay attention to the process.

To practice this in the classroom, the teacher should try to control the amount of

attention a learner can give to a language form.

For example the teacher can require the learner to produce language within a set

length of time. Nation's (1989) 4/3/2 procedure shows how this might be used in the

classroom. Students prepare a talk that they must deliver to partners in four minutes,

then three, then two. Also, the teacher can determine the number of tasks to be done at

a given time, thus varying the length and number of utterances the learner is expected

to produce. The more work that the learner has to do, the less attention the learner

can afford to pay to each task. Finally, the teacher can control where the learner turns

his attention, not just by the number and complexity of tasks set, but by the nature of

those tasks. The teacher can also control whether the learner perceives a given task as
"f
orm-focused" or "message-focused." When a task is successfully message-focused, the

inevitable result is to direct attention away from form.

In at least these three senses, then, the teacher controls the amount of attention

that a learner can afford to devote to a given item. The teacher can therefore exploit

this control to decrease the amount of attention available to a learner when performing

a skill. Thus when learners are introduced to the present perfect (for example) , they

are given optimal conditions for its production. Without time constraints, the learners

are asked to produce no other language, and the exercise is clearly form-focused. Over

time, the teacher can introduce time constraints, expect the learners to produce more

language, and shift attention away from form onto message.

Procedural Knowledge: Automizing Skills and Fluency

Anderson's model, it must be remembered, is not the only way to acquire a skill.

Anderson and Fincham (1994) state: "It is too strong to argue that procedural knowledge

can never be acquired without a declarative representation ... nevertheless, the research
does indicate that this is a major avenue for the acquisition of procedural knowledge" (p.

1320 , which brings us to this paper's overriding concern: increasing fluency.

130
 11)

z0
As Wood (2001) quoting Chafe notes, "fluent speech occurs in spurts, punctuated
03
by pauses at meaning and syntactic junctures. The ability to speak in this way

necessitates handling information that could compete for the speaker's attention and jam

the system." When this jamming happens, "the result is disfluent speech , characterized by
slow speed, pauses at mid-clause, sentence, or phrase, and brief , incomplete, or simplified

language runs between pauses" (quoted in Wood, 2001 p . 4). The reason for this has to

do with the need to balance skills, attention, and planning during speech and the fact that

advanced, fluent speakers and native speakers have a greater repertoire of automized

chunks of language that they use to buy time while formulating the next sentence or

phrase. Rehbein (1987, p. 104) says, "one may propose that fluency in a second language
requires the capability of handling routinized complex speaking plans." Routinized

speaking plans have become automized and can be pulled easily from a repertoire and

encoded into speech.

Automated chunks of language, then, are a vital part of fluency . Specifically,

automation of language enables speakers to achieve the speed and pause patterns which

characterize fluent speech. And while some linguists maintain that creative construction

of utterances is the defining feature of all language use, it is certain that spontaneous

spoken language contains phrases and clauses which have been stored as wholes. These

clauses and phrases are combined with creatively constructed stretches of language.

Miller and Weinert (1998) state, "we are not saying that the entire set of spontaneous

spoken utterances consists of prefabricated chunks ... only that they contain a proportion

of prefabricated chunks that ease the encoding and decoding load" (p. 394).
According to this view, the basis of fluent speech is an intricate interweaving of

formulaic and newly constructed segments. Given the importance of formulaic language

units, it follows that teachers must facilitate their automization. We will now look at how

an intensive ESL program at a Canadian university integrated this theory into a foreign-
language classroom.

This program (see Wood, 2001) was held with students of varying Lls. It consisted

of workshops held three hours per week for six weeks. One sequence of activities used

to enhance fluency started with the learners listening to a ten-minute audiotape of a

native speaker. The students discussed the content of the speech, and then listened to

Skill Acquisition and Second Language Teaching 131

 AA

4"- N

Pty
the recording again while following a transcript in order to clarify their understanding.

During the third listening, the instructor drew the group's attention to formulaic

language units.
)1)
In the automizing stage, after the input and analysis were finished, the learners

imitated the speech; first as a group reading aloud with the recording, and then in the

language lab. They were encouraged to pay close attention to the formulaic language

units, with instructions to repeat the more challenging stretches as many times as

needed. After the laboratory practice, the learners participated in two classroom

activities designed to facilitate further automization of the formulaic language units: a

dictogloss and a mingle jigsaw.

A dictogloss is a procedure introduced by Wajnryb (1990). In this technique, the

teacher reads a short text two or three times at a normal speed. The students listen and

write down as much information as they can, even if it is just a word or two. When the

reading is finished, the students are divided into small groups and pool their resources

to reconstruct the text. The students then compare and analyze the versions they have

produced. Finally, the teacher gives them a correct transcript that they can compare to
their own versions. The target phrases were central to this activity, of course.

A mingle jigsaw (Wood, 1998) makes students responsible for pieces of information

that they share with classmates. All students get up and "mingle" as though at a party.

Each student tells his or her assigned sentence or phrase to other students and listens

to classmates telling theirs. The student then return to their seats and jot down what

they heard. They then return to the group to continue sharing information, mixing and

returning to their seats until everyone has had a chance to talk to and listen to everyone

else.

At the end of this exercise, learners were arranged into two equal circles: half

facing outward and the other half facing inward. A topic from a brainstormed list related
to the taped model was announced, and each partner in a pair had two minutes to talk

spontaneously about it, without stopping. Then the learners in the outside circle moved

one step to the left so that everyone had a new partner, a topic was announced, and the

process resumed. Topics were announced and partners changed until everyone in the
outer circle had talked to and listened to everyone in the inner circle.

132

1
 R)
0
0

z
Finally, the learners were asked to prepare a brief talk based on the topic of the

model. In preparation for the talk, they were guided through Nation's 4/3/2 procedure.

Most foreign language teachers will not have the time, facilities, and perhaps the

motivated students needed to use this entire technique. It has been described, however,

to show how one program uses the skill acquisition model with techniques that many

teachers use to encourage fluency. Some parts of the technique can be adapted to most

teaching situations.

Conclusion and Summary

Cognitive psychology has documented how people use explicit knowledge to acquire

skills. Using Anderson's (1995) model of skill acquisition, this paper has discussed the

implications of this research for the foreign language classroom. This paper has shown

that skill-based language teaching is consistent with current views of teaching. The types

of exercises discussed by advocates of a skill-based approach do not differ from those

that are already found in the foreign language classroom. Skill acquisition theory simply

justifies common classroom procedures.

This paper has also shown how skill acquisition-based theories give the teacher a

balanced approach that focuses on both linguistic form and meaning while making second

language teaching more psychologically sound. This is consistent with the current "focus

on form" and fosters the development of accuracy in production. The teacher must

therefore think carefully about the goal of each activity, instilling knowledge about the

rules, changing this knowledge into something else through practice, and then automizing

this knowledge so that the skill can be repeated faster and with fewer errors.

This paper discusses the developments in cognitive psychology that are of

fundamental importance to language teaching in the hope that teachers will consider skill

acquisition theory when considering ways of improving their students' oral proficiency.

References

Anderson, J.R. (1987) . Skill acquisition: Compilation of weak-method problem solutions.

Psychological Review, 94 (2) , 192-210.

Skill Acquisition and Second Language Teaching 133

AQ

FE
Anderson, J. R. (1995). Developing expertise. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive psychology and

its implications, Fourth edition (pp.272-304). New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Anderson, J.R., & Fincham, J. (1994). Acquisition of procedural skills from examples. Journal of
)1)
Experimental Psychology, 20, 1322-1340.

Bates, E. (1994). Modularity, domain specificity and the development of language. Center for

Research in Language: University of California, San Diego. Available at: http.//www.esc.soton.

ac.ukrharnad/Papers.

Chomsky, N. (1988). Language and problems of knowledge. Cambridge: MIT Press.

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.

Gatbonton, E., & Segalowitz, N. (1998). Creative automatization: Principles for promotion fluency

within a communicative framework. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 473-492.

Huey, E.B. (1968). The psychology and pedagogy of reading. Cambridge: MIT Press

Johnson, K. (1982). Now for English 1. Walton-on-Thames: Thomas Nelson.

Johnson, K. (1996). Language teaching and skill learning. Oxford: Blackwell.

Krashen, S.D. (1982) Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon

Institute of English.

Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1997). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Littlewood, W. (1992). Teaching oral communication: A methodological framework. Oxford:

Blackwell.

Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form. In C. Doughty & J . Williams, (Eds.), Focus on

form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15-41). New York: Cambridge University
Press.

Miller, J., & Weinert, R. (1998). Spontaneous spoken language: Syntax and discourse . Oxford:

Clarendon Press.

Nation, P. (1989). Improving speaking fluency. System, 17 (3), 377-384.

Rehbein, J. (1987). On fluency in second language speech. In H.W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds .),

Psycholinguistic models of production (pp. 97-105). Norwood, NJ: Ablex

Schneider, W. & Fisk, A. D. (1983). Attentional theory and mechanisms for skilled performance .

In R. A. Magill (Ed.) , Memory and control of action (pp.119-143). New York: North-Holland

Publishing Company.

Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. (1997). Controlled and automatic human information processing:

134
 R.)
0
0

Detection, search and attention. Psychological Review, 84 , 1-66. z

*
Ct)
Schiffrin, R.M., and Dumais, S. T. (1981). The development of automatism. In Anderson J .R. (ed.)

Cognitive skills and their acquisition. City: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Tonkyn, A. (1996). Preparing for real-world tasks in the classroom. The Language Teacher

Online. 20.9.

Wajnryb, R. (1990). Grammar dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wood, D. (1998). Making the grade: An interactive course in English for academic purposes .

Toronto: Prentice-Hall.

Wood, D. (2001, June). In search of fluency: What is it and how can we teach it? Canadian

Modern Language Review, 57(4). Available at: http://www .utpjournals.com.

Yoshimura, F. (2000, Spring/Summer). Automaticity theory and EFL in Japan with some specific

applications for reading. Literacy Across Cultures. Available at: http://www.otani.cc/ss27/

Autotheory.html

Skill Acquisition and Second Language Teaching 135