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
This paper's primary
students'

oral production

and Second Language Teaching

concern is the foreign language classroom and improving

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

)1)

(1995), Anderson

argues that

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

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;

stage, the learners

Learners

perform

have converted

knowledge, which requires

procedural,

errors are detected

and eliminated. In the autonomous

the skill better, more rapidly,

declarative

knowledge

less processing

not the declarative,

knowledge

and more automatically.

into what Anderson

capacity. Anderson

calls procedural

(1995) says, "it is the

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

declarative knowledge of the rule. An embarrassing

when the author was asked a frequently
remember

might or might

not lose the

example of this happened recently

used telephone

until he looked at a telephone and pretended

number which he could not

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

but how one moves from exclusively declarative

120

one loses declarative

knowledge to procedural

knowledge ,
knowledge.

R.)
0
0

What matters

here is that proceduralization

is achieved by engaging

in the target

z
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),

in mind while practicing driving allows for the restructuring

keeping this knowledge

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

a function of more practice, which increases

knowledge becomes

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
procedures
"program"

knowledge

has the advantage

of speed. Knowledge

is embedded

in

for action, or as Johnson (1996) says, "In computing terms, learners have a
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

)1)

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
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

Anderson's

model progresses,

through

ensuring

a more complete

differences

between

practice,

language mastery.

declarative

of declarative

to procedural

knowledge,

knowledge,

thereby

That is to say, given the task-related

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
skill development"

component

(p. 111). When a skill is newly learned, its performance

of

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"
Schneider

122

and Fisk

(1983)

explain

the mechanisms

(p. 108).

of skill acquisition

by

ro
0
0

contrasting

automatic

and controlled

types

of cognitive

processing:

CA)

Automatic

processing

limited by short-term

is a fast, parallel, fairly effortless

process

which is not

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
processing
subject

is characterized

controlled

over many trials ... Controlled

as a slow, generally serial, effortful, capacity limited,

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
language learning occurs. Some language and cognition researchers

over how

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

SLA is the distinction Stephen Krashen

theory and its application to

(1982) makes between language learning and

language acquisition. Krashen holds these two realms as separate

traditional

concept of automization

of consciously learned

rules is wrong because it

implies that learned knowledge can become acquired knowledge

also argues that grammar

and states that the

(p. 82). Krashen (1982)

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

124

is beyond

ICJ

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

doubt, we will understand

researchers

for these differences.

Someday, no

the nature of language and its relation to other skills. Future

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
departure

teaching

that

emphasizes

the acquisition

of skills is not a radical

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,

Method, for example, were not even interested

productive

skills. Later, structurally-based

tried to instill behaviors

requisite

declarative

(proceduralize

knowledge

using the Grammar

in the automization

methods

Translation

of their students'

went too far the other way and

knowledge) through mechanical drills before the

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

much weight on structures,

knowledge, and placed too

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
methods that teachers
based on Anderson's

currently

use in the classroom. What DeKeyser

theory - is that proceduralization

target behavior while temporarily

leaning on declarative

is claiming -

is achieved by engaging in the

crutches

204). Repeated behaviors of this kind allow the restructuring

The knowledge is proceduralized,

to the

(Anderson,

of declarative

1987, p.

knowledge.

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

Implementing

126

Knowledge

a methodology

that

is consistent

with

skill

acquisition

theory

means

anchoring the relevant knowledge solidly in the student's

mind at the outset. This can

z
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
"
communicative

(1998) argues that

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

paying any attention to meaning. An example of this would be the transformation

without
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
instilling declarative

drills, those that DeKeyser claims are the most important for

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
argument

is that while students

to be devoted to form (pp. 127-130). His

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
Johnson's characterization

than on thinking about grammar .

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

can give oral presentations

until the students have full comprehension . They

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

p. 55) notes the importance

correction

model . DeKeyser

to the development

(1998,

of declarative

knowledge, and Johnson

(1996, pp. 121-123) considers the issue in detail . These views,

of course, are contrary

to "acquisition based" approaches

Krashen's)

128

of error

element of Anderson's

to language teaching

(like

that view error correction as a waste of time . Such "naturalistic approaches"

RD
0
0

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

z NN,J
.
co

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

coordinate

the elements

knowledge.

To do this, learners

(1995) model, the associative stage is where learners

needed

to translate

declarative

must perform

knowledge

to procedural

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

can perform more integrative

never develop skills to the point where they

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

In
After

short,

students

practicing

framed
cognitive

tasks.

distinct
In so doing,

resources

need

to practice

tasks

skills,

learners

then

they

will learn

how

can be reserved

for more

until
need

they

to practice

to balance
complex

have

their

(p. 3).

achieved
more
attention

automaticity
integrative,
span , and

.
less

their

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
To practice

without having to pay attention to the process.

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
classroom. Students prepare

shows how this might be used in the

a talk that they must deliver to partners

then three, then two. Also, the teacher can determine

in four minutes,

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

are given optimal conditions for its production.

perfect

(for example) , they

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)
o

As Wood (2001) quoting Chafe notes, "fluent speech occurs in spurts, punctuated
by pauses

at meaning

and syntactic

junctures.

The ability

to speak

in this way

z0
03

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
of prefabricated

consists of prefabricated

chunks ... only that they contain a proportion

chunks that ease the encoding and decoding load" (p. 394).

According to this view, the basis of fluent speech is an intricate interweaving

formulaic and newly constructed

segments. Given the importance

of

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

During the third

)1)

listening,

the instructor

in order to clarify their understanding.

drew the group's

attention

to formulaic

language units.
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
units, with instructions

to pay close attention

to repeat the more challenging

needed. After the laboratory

practice,

the learners

to the formulaic language

stretches

participated

as many times as
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

R)
0
0

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
)1)

skills from examples. Journal of

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.

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

z
*
Ct)

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).
applications for reading. Literacy

Automaticity theory and EFL in Japan with some specific

Across Cultures.

Available at: http://www.otani.cc/ss27/

Autotheory.html

Skill Acquisition

and

Second

Language

Teaching

135