The Desirable Difficulty Framework as a Theoretical Foundation for Optimizing and Researching Second Language Practice

Abstract

This coda article offers unified theoretical accounts of the major findings of the empirical studies in this special issue of Optimizing Second Language Practice in the Classroom: Perspectives from Cognitive Psychology. We present a theoretical framework from cognitive psychology (desirable difficulty framework) and link it to the ideas of second language (L2) difficulty. We argue that practice condition, linguistic difficulty, and individual differences need to be taken into account for creating optimal, deliberate, and systematic L2 practice. The desirable difficulty framework may serve as a theoretical foundation to better understand the role of practice on L2 acquisition, as well as to gain insights into effective L2 teaching. Future directions for research are presented to further develop this emerging field of L2 practice.

Empirical Feasibility of the Desirable Difficulty Framework: Toward More Systematic Research on L2 Practice for Broader Pedagogical Implications

“…The perceived difficulty is closely tied to the perceived effectiveness of training; learners tend to consider training to be effective when difficulty during training is low and learning‐phase performance is successful (but see Nakata & Suzuki, in this issue, for the “judgement of learning” data), although successful learning‐phase performance does not often yield the most successful outcomes (e.g., Bjork, ). (Suzuki et al., , p. 714)…”

“…In their commentary, Rogers and Leow emphasized the importance of examining concurrent learning processes, while referring to Table 1 in Suzuki et al. (, p. 716). In the table, some conditions (e.g., blocked practice, shorter spacing, retrieval) are labeled as inducing “low difficulty,” while others (e.g., interleaved practice, longer spacing, trial and error) are associated with “high difficulty.” Rogers and Leow argued that “Although intuitive, such a categorization may be problematic given a lack of empirical evidence to validate the relative difficulty of the different learning conditions” (p. 310).…”

“…We believe that their criticism does not apply because it is possible to estimate the relative difficulty of different learning conditions based on empirical evidence—namely, learning phase performance. In our coda chapter, we pointed out that “Accuracy/error data during practice (e.g., proportion of correct responses on grammar exercises [Nakata & Suzuki, in this issue] or during vocabulary exercises [Strong & Boers, in this issue]) can be used as a measure of L2 difficulty” (Suzuki et al., , p. 714). For instance, Nakata and Suzuki () demonstrated that interleaved practice led to a significantly lower proportion of correct responses during the learning phase (77.0%) than blocked practice (87.2%).…”

“…We completely agree with this statement. In our coda chapter, we stated the following: “Perhaps, in future research, new technologies such as eye tracking (Révész & Gurzynski–Weiss, ) and pupillometry (Schmidtke, ) can also provide more sensitive measures of difficulty experienced by learners” (Suzuki et al., , p. 714). Triangulation of these concurrent measurements with accuracy and reaction time data during training may lead to a more comprehensive picture of learning processes.…”

“…IT WAS OUR PLEASURE TO RECEIVE A commentary from Rogers and Leow () on Suzuki, Nakata, and DeKeyser (), the coda chapter of the special issue ( Optimizing Second Language Practice in the Classroom: Perspectives from Cognitive Psychology ) in The Modern Language Journal 103 (3). Their commentary was overall positive toward a theoretical framework for systematic and deliberate second language (L2) practice that we proposed in the chapter.…”