Joshua Wedlock<\/strong> Christopher Binnie<\/strong> Although research indicates that deliberate practice is indispensable for achieving high levels of proficiency and expertise in a range of disparate fields, this type of practice has largely been overlooked in the second language acquisition literature. To bridge this gap, and advocating for a more intentional and goal-directed approach to second language learning, the authors of this article have drawn from a range of relevant research pertaining to deliberate practice, expert performance, educational psychology, cognitive neuroscience, and second language acquisition, as well as three decades of combined personal experience as professional educators, to elucidate as to how the Deliberate Practice for Second Language Learning Framework can be employed by educators to design and implement protocols most suited to promoting optimal language learning for their students, both inside and outside the classroom. Findings from this in-depth analysis, and resulting framework, suggest that deliberate practice may play a significant role in facilitating more effective language learning outcomes, especially in non-immersion settings.<\/p>\n Keywords<\/em><\/strong>: deliberate practice; second language learning; evidence-based education; desirable difficulty<\/p>\n Globally, an estimated 1.5 billion people are striving to learn an additional language for a broad-ranging number of personal or professional reasons. The pursuit of another language demands significant investment in terms of learner time, effort, and often finances. Consequently, professional educators must be prepared to provide evidence-informed learning protocols and practices, both inside and outside of the classroom, to ensure that students have the best possible chances of achieving their language learning objectives. A critical part of supporting learners in this process is equipping them with well-designed and sustained opportunities for practice, as the nature and quality of practice, particularly outside the classroom, significantly influence second language development (Lai et al., 2015; Ortega, 2007; Richards, 2015).<\/p>\n Recognizing the importance of this responsibility, and in concordance with growing calls for practice-based education (Hlas, 2021), this article will outline how the Deliberate Practice for Second Language Learning Framework<\/em> (informed by Ericsson, 2008, 2020; Ericsson & Pool, 2016), can be utilized by educators and learners to deliver both optimal in-class and out-of-class second language learning. To deploy the framework effectively, teachers should possess an in-depth knowledge of relevant second language acquisition (SLA) theories, such as the Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 2015), the Compelling Input Hypothesis (Krashen & Bland, 2014), and the Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt, 2012). Additionally, they should be well-versed in a range of high-leverage teaching practices (see Glisan & Donato, 2017, 2021; Hlas & Hlas, 2012), understand the principles of learning (for an overview, see Kirschner & Hendrick, 2020), and be equipped with a variety of evidence-based or theoretically informed tasks and activities (for an overview, see Wedlock & Wilson, 2024), as these practices, theoretical knowledge, and resources are vital for designing effective learning protocols that align with the above stated framework.<\/p>\n Nevertheless, as important as this pedagogical and theoretical knowledge is for educators, research shows that a number of teachers in the language education profession may be ill-equipped to supply effective learning advice to their students due to a lack of proper training, knowledge, and\/or qualifications (Binnie & Wedlock, 2022; Wang & Lin, 2013). Therefore, in this article, we advocate for a robust practice framework that outlines the necessary steps for effective practice, guiding educators towards best outcomes. To establish the need for such a framework, and to better situate its rationale, we begin by outlining the historical and theoretical development of practice in second language learning.<\/p>\n In the 20th<\/sup> century, the concept of practice in second language (L2) learning underwent considerable transformation and was shaped by evolving theories of learning and cognition (Anderson, 1983; DeKeyser, 2007; Lightbown & Spada, 2013; Ortega, 2009). Rooted in ideas from behaviorist psychology, L2 practice in the 1940s to the 1970s was viewed as necessitating rote memorization, mimicry, and habit formation reinforced through mechanical drills (Suzuki, 2023). As DeKeyser (2007) noted, there are three types of practice drills: (1) mechanical (i.e., drills requiring no L2 comprehension), (2) meaningful (i.e., drills requiring the form and meaning of the L2 to be understood), and (3) communicative (i.e., drills requiring an exchange of information). Due to reliance on mechanical drilling in early L2 teaching methods (e.g., audiolingualism), practice developed a poor reputation among researchers; as Lightbown (1985) rightly pointed out, mechanical drills do little to enhance communication skills.<\/p>\n Displaced by cognitive-interactionist models in the 1980s and 1990s (see e.g., Anderson, 1983, 1995), which integrated findings from SLA-adjacent fields such as cognitive psychology, L2 learning was increasingly thought to follow a similar process to the learning of other complex cognitive skills (e.g., learning to play chess), and as such, driven by general learning mechanisms (Leeman, 2007; Suzuki, 2023; Suzuki et al., 2025). As a result, researchers explored how practice could lead to more optimal L2 development, notably within the framework of Skill Acquisition Theory (SAT), which details the progression of individuals as they move from initial learning to more advanced competence levels. Within the SAT framework, consisting of three main concepts \u2013 declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, and automatization \u2013 it was theorized that information is processed in either a controlled or automatic way. It was argued that declarative knowledge (i.e., knowing \u201cwhat\u201d) could transform into procedural knowledge (i.e., knowing \u201chow\u201d) through repeated and meaningful practice, especially in goal-oriented, structured tasks (Anderson, 1995). Through additional fine-tuning and restructuring through the mechanism of feedback (Leeman, 2007; Ranta & Lyster, 2007), it was also believed that procedural knowledge, essential for the efficient, effective use of an L2, could become automatized (i.e., rapidly retrieved and effortlessly used employing minimal cognitive resources) (DeKeyser, 1997, 2007, 2020).<\/p>\n In recent years, the notion of practice has experienced renewed interest due to findings from fields once thought as peripheral to second language acquisition (SLA) (e.g., cognitive psychology), in part due to assumptions that language acquisition differs from the learning of skills or knowledge in other domains (Leeman, 2007). Drawing on cognitive theories of skill learning and practice from psychology and related disciplines, and to untangle the notion of practice from associations with behaviorist drills, DeKeyser (2007) proposed a newer definition of L2 practice as \u201cspecific activities in the second language, engaged in systematically, deliberately, with the goal of developing knowledge of and skills in the second language\u201d (p. 8). Building on this redefinition and emphasizing that optimal L2 practice drives L2 acquisition (Ortega, 2007), research expanded the understanding of how the quality of practice could maximize L2 acquisition. According to Suzuki (2023), and grounded in principles of cognitive psychology, effective L2 practice comprises five principles: (1) deliberate, (2) systematic, (3) transfer appropriate, (4) feedback, and (5) desirable difficulty, notions also espoused by Ortega (2007), who emphasized that quality practice must be interactive, meaningful, and focus on task-essential forms. In sum, L2 practice was no longer seen as merely repetitive \u201cparroting\u201d but as a deliberate, systematic, and structured process that works to build declarative knowledge, and supports the proceduralization and automatization of language skills.<\/p>\n Further, due to research findings revealing that L2 skill learning may involve similar learning principles that guide the acquisition of skills in other domains (Suzuki et al., 2025), it became apparent that deliberate practice, a notion introduced by Ericsson (see next section), was a \u201cuseful concept\u201d that could be utilized in L2 practice research (Suzuki, 2023, p. 11), as it can foster automatization by assisting in restructuring existing learner knowledge, bolstering and expediting L2 knowledge retrieval. Thus, the implications of deliberate practice for language teaching are that higher levels of automaticity may be reached faster (Suzuki, 2023), making overall processing easier, and freeing up cognitive resources that can be reallocated to novel input and resulting in fluent language use (Yoshimura & MacWhinney, 2007).<\/p>\n Lastly, as SLA increasingly embraces technology-mediated and AI-enhanced learning environments, intentional and structured engagement with digital tools is becoming a necessary consideration in contemporary language learning research and practice (Chang & Sun, 2024). Approaches such as computer-assisted language learning (Ortega, 2007) and the worldwide rise in self-paced L2 practice (Serfaty & Serrano, 2024) illustrate the need for learners to engage in digital practice that is purposeful, systematic, and aligned with clear goals. This aligns with the learning principles outlined above, such as the importance of deliberate engagement, feedback, and task-essential focus, and with our Deliberate Practice for Second Language Learning Framework<\/em>, which posits that learning outcomes are optimized when practice is structured around explicit objectives, targeted feedback, and iterative improvement. In the next section, we discuss the historical and theoretical development of deliberate and purposeful practice, both of which have proven beneficial for promoting skill development across a broad range of domains and may hold promise for second language acquisition.<\/p>\n In their seminal study on expertise and mastery, Ericsson et al. (1993) found that optimal learning occurred when a subject focused on a specific task, invested effort to enhance performance, received prompt informative feedback, and engaged in repeated iterations of the same or similar tasks. In short, a specific goal, immediate feedback, and repetition proved key to increased task performance. Expanding on prior research, the concept of deliberate practice was applied to expert performance in various domains. For instance, a study involving musicians at an elite European academy revealed that the most proficient performers engaged in longer solitary practice sessions guided by expert music teachers (Ericsson et al., 1993). Notably, improved task performance correlated with achieving practice goals assigned by instructors, rather than the sheer amount of solitary practice engaged in. Consequently, Ericsson and Pool (2016) and Ericsson (2020) refined the concept of deliberate practice by accounting for the goal setting and feedback functions that an expert teacher\/coach delivers.<\/p>\n According to Ericsson and Pool (2016) and Ericsson (2020), there are four main types of practice: deliberate, purposeful, structured, and na\u00efve. Deliberate practice (DP) is a practice form that requires the involvement of an instructor\/coach who can assess an individual’s existing level of performance, propose suitable objectives for refinement, and provide training exercises that afford the learner opportunities for immediate feedback, repetition, and enhancement. Purposeful practice (PP) is a goal-directed, teacher-guided individualized practice form in which a learner performs practice tasks that offer chances for feedback, repetition, and enhancement (Moxley et al., 2019). In structured practice (SP), participants engage in teacher\/coach-planned group activities (e.g., in language education, this may include vocabulary chants, structured grammar lessons, phonics drills), but such activities are not customized to individual competency levels, offering limited opportunities for targeted performance improvement (Ericsson & Harwell, 2019). Na\u00efve practice (NP) involves extended engagement in an activity with a primary emphasis on increasing time spent, absent specific goals other than time accumulation (Ericsson & Pool, 2016) (e.g., in language education, this may include passively listening to\/watching media in the target language). In the context of many second language (L2) classrooms, it has been suggested that the type of practice often engaged in (frequently NP) does little to promote language competence (e.g., phonology, semantics) or skill (i.e., linguistic fluency) (VanPatten, 2013).<\/p>\n Contrary to erroneous reports in the mainstream press (e.g., Gladwell, 2008), achieving mastery in a given domain is not solely determined by the total accumulated hours spent in practice. Instead, it hinges on the extent of deliberate effort one dedicates to enhancing performance (Van Gog et al., 2005). Since DP\/PP duration is constrained by various factors, including skill level, age, and cognitive demands, more proficient learners have been advised to limit practice bouts to approximately one hour, while beginners should aim for approximately 15-20 minutes (Ericsson, 2020) \u2013 however, exact durations will depend on factors such as learner motivation, engagement level, task complexity, and one\u2019s success with given practice activities.<\/p>\n In light of this, educators must be conscious of how practice activities can be tailored (DeKeyser, 2010) in a dynamic and goal-directed way to ensure DP\/PP bouts are capitalized on to their fullest extent \u2013 a skill requiring high levels of pedagogical knowledge and in-depth understandings of up-to-date, evidence-based educational practices (see Newton & Nation, 2020, for research-based interventions amenable to DP\/ PP). Therefore, and as previously stated, it is important that language teachers first have experience employing high-leverage teaching practices (HLTPs). These practices, as described by Hlas and Hlas (2012), are learnable by teachers, provide the fundamentals of professional teaching, have a high impact on student learning (contingent on how the educator employs them), and are unlikely to develop through experience alone (for a comprehensive overview of HLTPs suitable for foreign language education, see Glisan & Donato, 2017, 2021). Educators must also be familiar with how to plan and scaffold instruction (see de Oliveira, 2023; Walqui, 2006), have practice in designing learning tasks and activities for specific language learning outcomes (see Hlas, 2021; Wedlock & Wilson, 2024), and maintain knowledge of a range of effective and viable out-of-class learning strategies, both traditional and technology-supported.<\/p>\n In a meta-analysis of DP studies, Macnamara et al. (2014) concluded that DP accounted for a substantial portion of performance variance, yet a considerable amount of such variance remained unexplained by DP. While Macnamara et al. (2014) and Hambrick et al. (2020) considered DP to be less pivotal than Ericsson (2020) posited, both studies acknowledge its beneficial role in fostering expert performance. Hambrick et al. (2020) additionally contend that confusion surrounds the definition of DP due to inconsistencies in its conceptualization.<\/p>\n Ericsson (2020), however, asserted that the definition of DP has remained consistent over the past 25 years, with Moxley et al. (2019) noting that criticisms of DP often fail to distinguish between different practice forms. For instance, in their meta-analysis, Macnamara et al. (2014) provided a simplified definition of practice \u2013 any structured domain activity (i.e., structured practice) \u2013 including all accumulated hours of such reported practice in their final results. Moreover, Macnamara et al. (2014) and Hambrick et al. (2020) failed to consider quality of practice according to DP criteria.<\/p>\n Considering the broad definition of DP discussed previously, Macnamara et al. (2014) and Hambrick et al. (2020) concluded that education-related DP accounted for a 4-5% performance variation, however, it is reasonable to assume that a more precise definition of DP would likely yield a higher percentage. Although this figure may seem modest when compared to DP performance gains recorded in other domains, even minor performance enhancements, particularly in the context of high-stakes language exams (i.e., Second Language Proficiency Exams), can mean the difference between success and failure, and should be considered a substantial return on investment for those striving to attain high levels of skill and proficiency.<\/p>\n A further criticism of Ericsson’s DP framework is its failure to account for genetically influenced factors or other domain-specific experiences (Hambrick et al., 2020). While it is undeniable that these factors, as well as many others, play a role in an individual’s level of mastery within a given domain, research has consistently demonstrated that DP and PP can significantly enhance learning and performance outcomes. Therefore, while acknowledging the importance of natural talent and genetics, it is crucial not to underestimate the influential role of DP in skill development and expertise acquisition, or the role of an expert coach or teacher in implementing DP and PP protocols.<\/p>\n Writing in 2009, and congruent with recent assertions made by Altuwairesh (2017) and Wedlock and Binnie (in press), Ortega (2009, p. 108) stated that conceptually, DP is \u201cvery much relevant to L2 learning but has not made it into SLA yet[,]\u201d with noteworthy exceptions in the context of teacher education (e.g., Glisan & Donato, 2017, 2021; Peercy & Troyan, 2017; Troyan et al., 2013) and language teaching (e.g., Suzuki et al., 2019). Given this limited presence in SLA, it is essential to first outline what DP entails in L2 learning. In line with DeKeyser\u2019s (2007) redefinition of L2 practice (see previous section on practice in language learning), research shows that L2 practice should be structured in ways that are favorable and personalized to the learner (Suzuki et al., 2019; Van Gog et al., 2005). As such, and in addition to Ericsson\u2019s (2020) notion of DP, we will also draw on the desirable difficulty framework (E.L. Bjork & R. A. Bjork, 2011; R.A. Bjork, 2018), which sets \u201coptimal, systematic, and deliberate practice conditions\u201d as well as desirable difficulties for learning (i.e., conditions of instruction initially appearing challenging, leading to slower learning rates, but which often result in enhanced long-term retention and transfer).<\/p>\n With the above in mind, let us now move on to outline the seven key concepts that inform the Deliberate Practice for Second Language Learning Framework<\/em>.<\/p>\n Modulated not only by its quantity and quality (Mackey & Goo, 2007) but also by the way it is processed (for an overview, see Luft, 2014), feedback \u2013 a key feature of the DP framework \u2013 encompasses information that learners can use to \u201cconfirm, add to, overwrite, tune, or restructure information in memory, whether that information is domain knowledge, metacognitive knowledge, beliefs about self and tasks, or cognitive tactics and strategies\u201d (Winne & Butler, 1994, p. 5740).<\/p>\n Although questioned on account of its overall impact in SLA (Nassaji & Kartchava, 2017), research conducted in the field of educational psychology has revealed the importance of providing learners, depending on the task and learning goal, with appropriate feedback (Kornell & Metcalfe, 2013; Metcalfe, 2017), a point also standing true for SLA (for a discussion, see Quinn & Nakata, 2017). As such, we posit that for feedback to be of real utility in the DP framework, it should extend beyond mere error correction (Heritage, 2019) \u00a0and contain information to scaffold (Finn & Metcalfe, 2010) and\/or facilitate a language learner\u2019s growth in specified areas (e.g., lexical, grammatical, pragmatic) (Moreno, 2004; Pashler et al., 2005), as well as acknowledge and reinforce successful actions or learning attempts, encouraging the learner to repeat these behaviors. Therefore, depending on the learner\u2019s current task performance, as well as their linguistic proficiency (Ammar & Spada, 2006), feedback can be affirmatory (used to confirm a desired action or outcome), reformatory (used to correct an undesirable action or outcome), or developmentary (used to expand one\u2019s knowledge or abilities).<\/p>\n Feedback should also consider the nature of the error (Sheen, 2010), distinguishing between performance errors and knowledge errors. Performance errors (e.g., a slip of the tongue) relate to an individual’s capacity to accurately apply present language skills, while knowledge errors (e.g., lexical knowledge deficiencies) are associated with gaps in one\u2019s linguistic repertoire. In turn, feedback may also be either categorical (e.g., this word is incorrect), graded (e.g., you are missing an adjective), or finely graded (e.g., place the adjective before the noun). Additionally, the learner must pay attention to, process, and attend to the feedback (i.e., engage cognitive resources towards rectifying the error or actioning the feedback) to have a chance to integrate this information into memory and improve performance (for a discussion on corrective feedback in second language learning, see Nassaji & Kartchava, 2017). Feedback should also be aligned to specific learning mechanisms (i.e., declarative and\/or procedural memory systems), and targeted at a narrow selection of errors, as attending to multiple error types simultaneously may cognitively overload the learner. The timing of feedback, whether immediate or delayed, should correspond to the nature of the learning task, the intended outcome (e.g., fluency vs. accuracy), and the learner\u2019s proficiency and experience level (Metcalfe et al., 2009). Within the context of language learning, dynamic assessment (Poehner, 2008) offers an effective means of not only identifying performance and knowledge gaps, but also delivering feedback that is responsive to the learner\u2019s current needs.<\/p>\n Finally, feedback that is followed by active, deliberate learner processing has been linked to improved performance (Metcalfe, 2017; Wisniewski et al., 2020). Structuring protocols that encourage learners to engage in cognitively demanding, in-depth analysis of feedback is therefore essential. As feedback is not a one-size-fits-all mechanism (Li, 2010), educators should be aware of its various forms and intensities in order to guide learners toward enhanced performance.<\/p>\n In conjunction with feedback, and congruent with Ericsson\u2019s DP framework (2020), another important consideration integrated into the DP framework is the notion of feedforward, which involves presenting learners with specific information about upcoming learning steps\/stages and future tasks\/activities to better manage learning events\/procedures (see Ericsson, 2020).<\/p>\n Secondly, teachers must account for the learners\u2019 Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), defined as the distance between what a learner can successfully accomplish by themselves compared to what they can achieve under the guidance of an educator, or working collaboratively with a higher-proficiency peer (Vygotsky, 1978) when designing DP\/PP protocols. Support provided should extend slightly beyond the learner’s current skills, enhancing and expanding upon their existing capabilities (Cole & Cole, 2001). As Shabani et al. (2010) noted, upon successfully accomplishing a learning task under the guidance of a teacher or higher-proficiency peer, it is probable that the learner will subsequently exhibit the capacity to independently execute the same (or similar) task, thereby advancing their current ZPD. As such, the notion of ZPD holds scaffolding (i.e., providing learners with support to enhance knowledge or performance) implications, as instructors must be sensitive to how and when more learning responsibility for a given task is transferred to the learner.<\/p>\n Teachers should also promote engagement and depth of processing to guide DP\/PP. Since \u201cpeople learn about the things that they pay attention to and do not learn much about the things they do not attend to\u201d (Schmidt, 2012, p. 28), the degree of learner attention and engagement are of prime importance when undertaking bouts of DP\/PP, an idea supported by findings from cognitive neuroscience (e.g., Chun & Turk-Browne, 2007; Stevens & Bavelier, 2012), cognitive psychology (e.g., Craik & Lockhart, 1972; Kirschner & Hendrick, 2020), and SLA research (e.g., Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001; Schmidt, 2012; Tomlin & Villa, 1994).<\/p>\n Further, as findings from educational and cognitive psychology have demonstrated, learning is strengthened when stimuli are processed at a more substantial level (e.g., Craik & Lockhart, 1972; Eysenck, 1982; Kirschner & Hendrick, 2020) and when one intentionally makes concentrated and sustained efforts to enhance one’s skills, performance, or understanding (i.e., deliberate practice) (Ericsson & Pool, 2016; Suzuki et al., 2019). Research examining the influence of depth of processing (DoP) (i.e., the amount of cognitive effort involved in encoding, decoding, or analysing input) on second language learning has revealed that processing target language in deeper and more complex ways leads to improved lexical retention, enhanced language comprehension, and more robust long-term learning (e.g., Leow & Mercer, 2015; Schmidt, 2012). For example, in a study involving advanced L2 learners, Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) found that structured classroom tasks that required more mental effort to complete led to higher retention of new lexical items. Therefore, any strategy that encourages learners to engage more elaborately and cognitively with linguistic input is crucial for DP\/PP (see Wedlock & Binnie, 2023, for more on promoting DoP and DP\/PP using videos for intentional language learning; Glisan & Donato, 2017, Chapter 4, for an overview of PACE, a high-leverage approach to grammar instruction that promotes DoP and is amenable to DP\/PP; and Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001, for a discussion of the Involvement Load Hypothesis and its application to operationalizing DoP in second language vocabulary learning).<\/p>\n Integral to DP\/PP, educators should also account for the essential role that repetition (and repeated retrieval) holds for enhancing knowledge and performance. Mechanical repetition (i.e., drilling) has been criticized in the SLA literature (e.g., Long, 2015; Wong & VanPatten, 2003) on the grounds that it fails to push learners to establish desired meaning-to-form links (VanPatten, 2004), while R. Ellis (1994) asserts that practice solely focused on forms is of limited use as it cannot promote the acquisition of novel grammatical structures. Repetition, however, if performed strategically and methodically, is known to be useful for facilitating the learning of multiword expressions (Ferguson et al., 2021; Fern\u00e1ndez, 2020), enhancing speaking fluency (Suzuki, 2021), and developing listening and pronunciation (Hamada & Suzuki, 2022).<\/p>\n In addition, and as DeKeyser (2010, p. 162) pointed out, systematic activities may be necessary to enhance language learning, as optimal practice does not involve \u201cmere exposure to or unstructured interaction in the target language.\u201d Likewise, N. Ellis (2005, p. 307) noted that many second language components cannot be acquired, or at best are acquired very slowly, from \u201cimplicit processes alone[,]\u201d a notion echoed by N. Ellis and Wulff (2020). Systematic activities, however, need not simply focus on the repetitive shaping and altering of form, as practice can take the form of role-plays, task-based learning, content-based teaching (DeKeyser, 2010), repeated reading (Yoshimura & MacWhinney, 2007), or repeated listening (Hamada & Suzuki, 2022), with repetition coming in the form of changing partners for role-playing, repeating the same or similar tasks, in the case of task-based learning (e.g., Lambert et al., 2017; Sample & Michel, 2015), or through the repetition of activities aimed at enhancing fluency and promoting automaticity of specific items\/sequences (Gatbonton & Segalowitz, 2005; Newton & Nation, 2020). Given that practice effects tend to be task- and context-specific (Sato & McDonough, 2019), contextualized repetition that aligns with communicative goals may be especially valuable. Therefore, when practice is defined as a chance for purposeful productive and receptive language use, and for intentional, concentrated refinement of challenging linguistic aspects, its function becomes undeniably advantageous and even indispensable (Lightbown, 2000).<\/p>\n Thus, for optimal effectiveness, and concordant with Ericsson\u2019s (2020) notion of DP, repetition must be goal-directed, purposeful, and the learning task must match the desired learning outcome. As Therrien (2004) noted, for example, structured repeated reading practice has the potential to raise reading fluency and comprehension levels (see Therrien & Kubina, 2006 for an overview of repeated reading instruction), enhance learner satisfaction and motivation to read (Taguchi et al., 2004), as well as help learners build stronger lexical representations, leading to lowered attentional word learning demands (Horst, 2013). In a study of Japanese university students, Taguchi et al. (2004) showed that repeated structured reading practice resulted in faster and more fluent reading, a finding also reported by Yoshimura and MacWhinney (2007). Similarly, de Jong and Perfetti (2011) found that structured speech repetition led to gains in oral fluency, and these gains were maintained only when learners repeated the same speech multiple times, highlighting the importance of consistency and task-specificity in productive language practice. In addition, repeated retrieval practice (especially for lexical items) has been revealed as a highly efficient form of practice (Karpicke & Roediger III, 2007; Vaughn & Rawson, 2011). Repetition is also important for successful long-term vocabulary acquisition, as evidenced by research conducted by Peters (2014) and Ferguson et al. (2021), in addition to enhancing self-efficacy, fostering confidence, and providing motivation for learner perseverance (Kirschner & Hendrick, 2020).<\/p>\n Further to the aforementioned findings, a plethora of research from educational and cognitive psychology (e.g., Logan, 1988; Zhan et al., 2018) suggests that repetition, including spaced repetition (Smolen et al., 2016), constitutes a significant facet of learning, aligning with Hebb\u2019s law of learning concerning neuroplasticity, wherein the increased connection weight between neurons A and B results from their proximate temporal firing (Bollen & Luce, 2002). This concept, often articulated as \u201cneurons that fire together wire together,\u201d underscores practice\u2019s vital role, as neural connections strengthen through repetition and retrieval practice. Thus, the advantages of repetition in facilitating learning outcomes should not be disregarded by educators, contingent upon specific learning objectives pursued.<\/p>\n Teachers involved in guiding DP and PP should also consider the pedagogical ramifications of Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) (Sweller, 2010), which posits that instructional design should consider the limitations of a learner\u2019s cognitive system (in regard to working memory and attention) in order to produce optimal learning outcomes (Schnotz & K\u00fcrschner, 2007; Sweller et al., 2011). Composed of extraneous load (i.e., cognitive resources allocated to aspects that do not facilitate learning), germane load (i.e., the amount of cognitive effort allotted to learning), and intrinsic load (i.e., the cognitive demands innate to a given task), research exploring CLT \u00a0in relation to second language learning emphasizes not only the use of instructional strategies that minimize extraneous load, but also the development and application of learning practices that enhance germane load to promote more robust learning (e.g., C. J. Hughes et al., 2021; H. Lee & Mayer, 2018; Sweller, 2017). Such practices may include, but are not limited to, enhancing target language comprehensibility by paraphrasing new words or expressions, choosing level-appropriate input, slowing down the rate of speech, and providing extra examples when defining new terms (Glisan & Donato, 2017; Troyan et al., 2013). Additionally, incorporating familiar stories in bouts of DP\/PP, ensuring schema development or activation prior to practice, matching the to-be-learned\/practiced material or skill to the learner\u2019s current capacity, and task repetition can also help reduce cognitive load.<\/p>\n Educators must also keep in mind the notions of optimal challenge and desirable difficulty when prescribing DP\/PP bouts. L2 difficulty is comprised of linguistic difficulty (e.g., formal complexity), learner-related difficulty (e.g., prior knowledge), and the context-related practice condition (e.g., practice and feedback type) (Suzuki et al., 2019). As demonstrated in a study by Schneider et al. (2002), in which participants who studied L2 vocabulary items under a \u201charder-to-learn\u201d condition experienced more enhanced long-term retention in comparison to those who learned under an \u201ceasier-to-learn\u201d condition, desirable difficulty predicts that when learners encounter an ideal level of challenge during learning or practice, their ability to retain and apply what they have learned afterward is optimized (Suzuki et al., 2019) and their long-term retention is enhanced (R. A. Bjork, 2018). Thus, when designing and implementing DP protocols and procedures, the concept of desirable difficulty should be factored in to ensure learners are provided with favorable but challenging levels of engagement (Wedlock & Binnie in press; Suzuki et al., 2019).<\/p>\n Aligned with research highlighting the advantages of desirable difficulties, characterized by adaptive task adjustments demanding heightened cognitive effort (E. L. Bjork & R. A. Bjork, 2011; R. A. Bjork & Kroll, 2015; Suzuki et al., 2019), findings across diverse domains indicate that optimal learning is achieved through a delicate equilibrium between an individual’s perceived skill level and the inherent difficulty of the learning task (Kidd et al., 2012; Metcalfe & Kornell, 2005; Wilson et al., 2019). Moreover, when one holds a high expectancy of success in a given learning task, it contributes to the realization of this optimal learning state (Bandura, 1977; Rea, 2000). Commonly referred to as The Goldilocks Zone<\/em> (e.g., Kidd et al., 2012), this optimal learning “sweet spot” is postulated to exist within a training range where learning attempt accuracy approximates 85% (Wilson et al., 2019) (however, this approximation is dynamic and dependent on several factors outside the scope of this paper), bolstering learner interest and arousal (Rea, 2000), and offering challenges that learners perceive as realistically surmountable (for a discussion on providing optimal learner challenges, see Rea, 2000).<\/p>\n In summary, learning tasks should offer a manageable and facilitative skill-challenge balance slightly beyond the learner\u2019s current ZPD, achieved by considering a task\u2019s \u201cnominal difficulty\u201d (i.e., innate task difficulty) and its \u201cfunctional difficulty\u201d (i.e., condition-related task challenge for an individual learner) (see Guadagnoli & T. D. Lee, 2004), and be designed to pinpoint areas of improvement by accounting for macro-scaffolding (long-term planning and task progression matched to learning goals), meso-scaffolding (selection, sequencing, and task implementation), and micro-scaffolding (in-the-moment educator-student interactions) (see de Oliveira, 2023; Walqui, 2006).<\/p>\n In facilitating teacher-guided independent practice sessions (PP) attempted outside of the formal learning context, it is of paramount importance that learners be taught to monitor their own learning process and be guided towards optimal out-of-class learning opportunities by an \u201cautonomy-supportive teacher\u201d (I\u015f\u0131k & Bal\u00e7ikanl\u0131, 2020, p. 66).<\/p>\n First, teachers must be aware of and convey effective cognitive and metacognitive language learning strategies for their learners to utilize in bouts of out-of-class language learning (OCLL), which is crucial as many learners lack the required skills for effective autonomous learning (I\u015f\u0131k & Bal\u00e7ikanl\u0131, 2020) and often neglect planning their metacognitive and monitoring learning processes (Botero et al., 2019). Research underscores the importance of educators equipping their students with various metacognitive strategies to facilitate successful L2 learning (Goh & Taib, 2006; L. T. C. Nguyen & Gu, 2013). Metacognitive language learning strategies, which involve being conscious of how one learns, and which strategies assist in promoting effective learning (C. D. Nguyen & Newton, 2018; Vandergrift et al., 2006; Zhang & Zou, 2024), aim to enhance a learner\u2019s engagement and maximize learning potential, and are a core component of the DP framework delineated in the next section.<\/p>\n In addition to providing learners with metacognitive strategies, educators must also provide level-appropriate guidance on which affordances (i.e., opportunities for learning) (see Richards, 2015) to engage with to reach desired learning goals. A large body of research demonstrates the potential of OCLL to boost language gains (Sundqvist, 2011) and enhance affective outcomes (Din\u00e7er, 2020; Fathali & Okada, 2017; Lai et al., 2018), with additional research showing that digital OCLL may compensate for formal education insufficiencies such as limited course time (Din\u00e7er, 2020; Lai et al., 2016). However, educators need to take note of which particular affordances are conducive to different learning goals and stages, especially since not all affordances and engagement strategies are of similar utility \u2013 teachers must be cognizant of what constitutes quality OCLL. Lai et al. (2015) reported that quality OCLL was comprised of activities that promoted a synergy between a focus on meaning and a focus on form, which in turn, positively correlated to higher grades, effective English learning outcomes, and enjoyment (Lai et al., 2015), as did activities that were diverse in nature (e.g., playing online video games, listening to podcasts, watching the news) and which complemented in-class learning (Din\u00e7er, 2020). Thus, it is critical that teachers be well-versed in OCLL pedagogy before prescribing bouts of PP to their learners in order to avoid incidences of na\u00efve practice.<\/p>\n In terms of digital OCLL, aside from potentially compensating for the insufficiencies of formal education, technology-enhanced language learning affordances (e.g., computer assisted language learning) offer a plethora of opportunities for learners to enhance their language learning outcomes if employed correctly (Shadiev & Yang, 2020). For example, Fathali and Okada (2017) found that the most effective technology-enhanced OCLL involved careful preparation by the instructor in: (1) choosing and designing activities that matched learners\u2019 current technological and learning abilities (especially at the beginner level), (2) promoting positive feedback from peers in an interaction-rich environment, (3) promoting learners\u2019 autonomous skills by providing a diverse range of activities and materials at their own level to choose from, (4) guiding learners through regular evaluation of their achievements, (5) and supporting learners through their various goal developments. As such, and congruent with the tenets of purposeful practice as defined by Ericsson (2020), it is of the utmost importance that learners be guided from a teacher-supported stage towards more independent learning where they feel empowered to utilize both the traditional and technology-supported affordances in their environment in more purposeful ways.<\/p>\n Extending this to the use of artificial intelligence (AI), the integration of AI-powered tools, such as ChatGPT, has the potential to provide learners with a range of OCLL opportunities (e.g., reading, writing, speaking, and listening), immediate feedback, repeated language production opportunities, and customized input aligned with their learning goals (Crompton et al., 2024; Woo & Choi, 2021). However, the effective use of such tools depends heavily on informed teacher guidance (Crompton et al., 2024; Solak, 2024; Woo & Choi, 2021). As with other forms of technology-enhanced language learning tools, educators must be able to evaluate and recommend appropriate technologies based on learners\u2019 developmental stage, language proficiency, age, and individual objectives. Without this pedagogical oversight, learners may engage with AI in unfocused or counterproductive ways, diminishing potential learning gains. Therefore, teacher knowledge is critical not only for selecting suitable tools but also for scaffolding their use to support strategic, independent language practice. This once again underscores the central role of highly qualified educators in promoting effective out-of-class learning that aligns with the principles of purposeful practice.<\/p>\n While learning an additional language is also contingent on factors not addressed in this article (e.g., motivation, heritable traits, learning environment, opportunity, demographics), we posit that, in addition to the requisite knowledge and practices outlined in the introduction, understanding and applying the seven preceding concepts to language learning can assist practitioners in structuring and implementing DP sessions and prescribing PP protocols more effectively. Given the often-limited time available for formal instruction, and the wide variation in learner proficiency, motivation, and contexts, there is a pressing need for learning protocols that are both adaptable and grounded in research on expert skill development. DP\/PP offers a structured approach that aligns instructional design with specific learning goals, making it easier for educators to create focused, feedback-rich practice opportunities that extend into learners’ independent study. It provides a practical way to connect second language acquisition theory with everyday teaching decisions and supports the development of high-impact tasks that promote meaningful progress.<\/p>\n Based on the authors\u2019 experiences employing the Deliberate Practice for Second Language Learning Framework<\/em> with both younger and older learners of varying English proficiencies, as well as literature attesting to the facilitative role DP plays in knowledge and skill acquisition in a number of domains researched thus far (for a discussion, see Wedlock & Binnie, in press), we have developed the following framework to not only inform educators how they can employ DP in the classroom, but also how PP can be deployed to maximize the learning outcomes of OCLL.<\/p>\n Since PP does not require the presence of a teacher\/mentor, or the provision of immediate feedback, DeKeyser\u2019s (2007) definition of practice for language learning (as stated previously) has been utilized as the basis for the considerations related to purposeful out-of-class practice outlined in the following framework. In relation to classroom-based or teacher-led DP for language learning, the considerations presented in the following framework are premised on DP being defined as a form of effortful practice utilizing learning tasks\/activities aimed at improving one\u2019s language skill or knowledge and requiring the provision of immediate actionable feedback from an expert educator, time for problem-solving and evaluation, and opportunities for repeated performance to refine behavior (adapted from Ericsson, 2008; and Ericsson & Pool, 2016).<\/p>\n An individualized diagnosis is performed to pinpoint upcoming areas for improvement and appropriate learning goals for practice. <\/strong>DP: The teacher conducts both a needs analysis (see Long, 2005 for a needs analysis overview) and an \u201cindividualized diagnosis\u201d to identify learning goals and address potential impediments to effective classroom-based DP (e.g., student motivation, emotional maturity) before selecting a learning goal.<\/p>\n PP: Findings from the needs analysis and individualized language learning diagnosis are used to inform the selection and implementation of suitable out-of-class learning protocols.<\/p>\n Practitioners seeking to guide DP and PP efforts may consult standardized rubrics, such as those outlined by the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), which include self-assessment “can-do” checklists, and can serve as valuable tools for establishing language development objectives.<\/p>\n The learner receives explicit instructions about the best methods to reach the current learning goal. <\/strong>DP: Based on the individual diagnosis mentioned above, the teacher employs the most relevant, evidence-based instructional approaches in an intentional, goal directed way as a means of promoting robust learning. These approaches may draw from high-leverage teaching practices, such as those suggested by Glisan and Donato (2017, 2021), Hlas (2021), and Hlas and Hlas (2012), be sourced from the literature on SLA (e.g., Newton & Nation, 2020) or be purposefully designed by the educator to target specific learning outcomes.<\/p>\n PP: The learner is given explicit evidence-based instruction about the best method\/s they should employ to capitalize on their context-specific OCLL affordances, including technology-supported affordances such as online learning tools and AI-powered platforms, as a means of achieving their stated learning objective. If possible, teachers should work with their students to develop individualized out-of-class PP learning schedules and train students in metacognitive awareness.<\/p>\n The learner engages in a task\/learning activity in a purposeful, goal-directed, and intentional manner. <\/strong>DP: To encourage intentional learner engagement, chosen tasks or activities should ideally have explicit, measurable learning outcomes. In cases where short-term measurement of outcomes is challenging (e.g., enhancing reading fluency), clear engagement expectations should be provided, such as reading the passage five times out loud, focusing on aspects like pronunciation, intonation, speed, accuracy, chunking, and prosodic features improvement.<\/p>\n PP: In line with the requirements for DP previously outlined, PP for out-of-class learning should incorporate learning tasks or activities that have clearly defined, articulated learning outcomes and\/or desired engagement expectations.<\/p>\n Each performance attempt is accompanied with feedback or self-monitoring strategies. <\/strong>DP: To ensure learners are afforded the best opportunity to develop their language proficiency, educators should aim to provide immediate formative feedback and feedforward after each performance attempt, whenever possible. In larger groups where individualized feedback may not be feasible, teachers can opt for a collective approach, addressing the class as a whole. Alternatively, students can be taught to use rubrics and checklists for peer feedback, while the teacher supervises and offers additional guidance to the entire class. However, without sufficient motivation, focus, and the ability to monitor peer performance effectively, the conditions required for DP may not be met. One way to help sustain motivation and enable learners to monitor their own progress is through ipsative feedback, which assists learners in comparing current performance with their past performance to track learning progress (G. Hughes, 2011) and is also amenable to DP\/PP efforts. Additionally, formative assessment, an ongoing process of systematic learning-related data collection assisting in identifying a learner’s current proficiency level, helping educators adapt lessons to achieve desired learning goals, and pinpointing further learning steps and how to take them (Heritage, 2019), is indispensable to DP.<\/p>\n PP: When engaging with purposeful out-of-class practice, learners should be encouraged to utilise self-monitoring and self-coaching strategies (see Fukuda et al., 2019; O\u2019Donoghue, 2017) as a means of realizing enhanced learning outcomes. Additionally, learners should be reminded to seek formative feedback from their teacher at their earliest convenience when encountering a problem or sticking point. To achieve these goals, educators need to actively teach their students self-monitoring and self-coaching strategies, as well as avail learners with opportunities for feedback and consultation.<\/p>\n The learner repeatedly performs the same or similar tasks\/learning activities. <\/strong>DP: Teachers should implement DP protocols that require students to \u201crepeatedly perform the same or similar tasks\u201d as a way of either promoting or consolidating task-specific language proficiency. Adhering to the notion of desirable difficulties, bouts of DP should be scheduled to promote the most robust learning outcomes, which may involve blocked, spaced, and\/or interleaved bouts of DP, depending on the learners\u2019 current language abilities, familiarity with the learning task\/activity, and intensity and duration of engagement needed to achieve the stated learning goal (for a thorough account of how to design learning activities and tasks amenable to DP\/PP, see Wedlock & Wilson, 2024).<\/p>\n PP: Similar to classroom-based DP, out-of-class PP requires the learner to repeatedly engage in the same (or similar) tasks or activities as means of not only promoting and consolidating language learning, but also as a means of enhancing fluency, increasing language confidence, and providing evidence of visible learning \u2013 all outcomes which have been linked to enhanced feelings of motivation and self-efficacy.<\/p>\n Learner improvement is monitored to decide when a higher challenge is to be attempted. <\/strong>DP: To promote continuous learning, the teacher \u201cmonitor[s] improvement to decide when transitions to more complex and challenging tasks are appropriate.\u201d Although generally not needed, especially in situations where teachers have set realistic learning goals which take into account learners\u2019 current abilities, situations may arise where a task\/activity is either presenting too much of a challenge, thus overly frustrating learners, or failing to yield the stated learning goal. In these situations, it may prove beneficial to adjust the learning task or realign the learning goal.<\/p>\n PP: The teacher encourages the learner to report on their current progress and adherence to the prescribed out-of-class learning protocols to ensure they have the required data to make changes at the appropriate time. The learner should apply self-monitoring and self-coaching strategies (as mentioned previously) to facilitate more effective out-of-class PP.<\/p>\n The teacher organizes the sequence of appropriate training tasks to promote continuous learning. <\/strong>DP: Accounting for the notions of ZPD, cognitive load, and scaffolding, teachers \u201corganize the sequence of appropriate training tasks\u201d in such a way as to provide their learners with a steady stream of learner-appropriate manageable challenges which act as catalysts for effective learning.<\/p>\n PP: Considering the range of viable OCLL affordances available to the learner, the teacher is responsible for adjusting the learner\u2019s current out-of-class PP protocol to reflect any changes in their learning goals or circumstances. During this phase, teachers should gradually reduce their level of involvement in task selection to encourage the learner to develop and refine their self-coaching and monitoring skills. Finally, mirroring the recommendation made in relation to classroom-based DP, educators are implored to adopt a well-thought-out, goal-directed approach to sequencing PP, recognizing that this strategy is generally more effective than an ad hoc approach to learning.<\/p>\n Table 1. <\/strong>Criteria for Deliberate Practice, Purposeful Practice, and Na\u00efve Practice for Language Learning<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nMacquarie University, Australia
\n<joshua.wedlock![\"atmark\"](\"http:\/\/www.tesl-ej.org\/atmark.png\")
hdr.mq.edu.au><\/p>\n
\nJoongbu University, South Korea
\n<chrisbinniejmail.ac.kr><\/p>\nAbstract<\/h3>\n
A Pathway to Enhancing Language Learning<\/h3>\n
Literature Review<\/h3>\n
Practice in Second Language Learning<\/h4>\n
The History of Deliberate Practice<\/h4>\n
Criticisms of Deliberate Practice<\/h4>\n
Deliberate Practice in Second Language Learning<\/h3>\n
Feedback and Feedforward<\/h4>\n
Zone of Proximal Development<\/h4>\n
Engagement and Depth of Processing<\/h4>\n
Repetition<\/h4>\n
Cognitive Load<\/h4>\n
Optimal Challenges and Desirable Difficulties<\/h4>\n
Learner Autonomy and Out-of-Class Language Learning<\/h4>\n
A Deliberate Practice Framework for Second Language Learning<\/h3>\n
Individualized Diagnosis and Design of Effective Practice<\/h4>\n
Actively Engage in a Task\/Learning Activity with an Explicit Goal, Immediate Feedback, and Repetition<\/h4>\n
Individualized Assessment of Skill to Inform the Design of Future Practice<\/h4>\n