This research project introduces a dynamic approach to investigation into Explicit Learning, Implicit Acquisition, Schema Automation, and the Variability and Skills Transfer Effects in English as a Second Language. The experimental cognitive processes include a brief period of explicit conscious learning (Phase I), implicit acquisition of grammatical competence (Phase II), and schema automation and fine-tuning of linguistic performance (Phase III). The results offer fresh insights into the contextual Variability Effects and the associated Skills Transfer Effects that emerged on various post-tests. The learning environment includes two substantially different learning conditions:

• Blocked Learning Condition with the emphasis on development of specific concepts within a limited range of contextual variability
• Random Learning Condition which initiates a much more fertile intellectual opportunity for construction and expansion of higher order abstract and generalized schemata within a much greater range of contextual variability

In both learning conditions, there is a systemic interaction between schema construction and schema automation leading to progressive reductions in intrinsic cognitive load and substantial increases in learners’ conscious processing capacity in the Working Memory.

The specific purpose of this research project is to provide answers to two fundamental research questions:

Q1. Will the instructional design (blocked arrangement of variability) that is primarily focused on complex cognitive skill automation rather than schema construction produce better learning outcomes for the less knowledgeable learners (Novices)?

Q2. Will the instructional design (random arrangement of variability) that is primarily focused on conscious schema construction rather than complex cognitive skill automation produce better learning outcomes for the more knowledgeable learners (Experts)?

The theoretical framework of this research project is based on:

• Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 1988; 1999),
• Universal Grammar – Principles and Parameters (Chomsky, 1981a) 
• Identity Hypothesis (McNamara, 1973; Dulay and Burt, 1974c; Ervin-Tripp, 1974; Cook, 1977; McLaughlin, 1978a, and 1985; Felix, 1978; Ellis, 1985b; and Bley-Vroman, 1988),
• Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt, 1990; Fotos, 1993; McLaughlin, 1987; Rutherford, 1987; Sharwood-Smith, 1981),
• Declarative – Procedural Distinction/Interface Hypothesis (Klein, 1990; McLaughlin, 1990; Anderson, 1983; Shiffrin & Schneider, 1977; LaBerge & Samuels, 1974),
• Monitor Hypothesis (Krashen, 1981and 1982),
• Explicit – Implicit Distinction (Krashen, 1985),
• Acquisition – Learning Hypothesis (Krashen, 1982 and 1985),
• Interlanguage Theory (Selinker, 1972).

The two dominant present-day approaches to learning and teaching ESL are the communicative approach and the explicit formal instructional method focusing on ESL syntax. In theory, the communicative approach alludes to the naturalistic and implicit development of grammatical competence as well as communicative performance skills in a natural acquisition environment whereby learners are supposed to implicitly map out their linguistic experiences onto inherent and innate linguistic networks that are part of the specific language faculty which includes Universal Grammar principles and parameters. In practice, however, the focus on natural and implicit development of grammatical competence is  grossly inadequate  as second language learners are constantly required to communicate under pressure at the levels well above their current levels of linguistic ability creating cognitive overload in the Working Memory and preventing their interlanguages from further development.

The explicit formal instruction, on the other hand, is producing comparatively better outcomes in terms of syntax development but is subject to several explicit as well as implicit considerations to be taken into account when designing learning programs and teaching instructions. As a conscious attention demanding Working Memory processing learning system, the formal instructional approach to ESL learning is inevitably subject to all the rules and principles of Cognitive Load Theory and hold no strategies that are suitable for implicit activation of the innate special language faculty or Language Acquisition Device (LAD) for the second language learners.

In the current research project – which utilises Chomsky’s (1981a) natural first language acquisition sequences in a compressed format – the streamlined implicit acquisition and automation effects were realised by application of the advanced contemporary computer learning technology. The experimental learning/acquisition materials were presented to research participants on UNSW Moodle platform through single computer screens. The program measured learners’ Speed of Response, Accuracy of Response, and levels of Mental Effort invested in the learning/acquisition progressions. The learning/acquisition sequences included the initial conscious learning phase (Phase I), the implicit acquisition of linguistic competence (Phase II), and the subconscious automation and implicit development of linguistic performance skills (Phase III). In addition, there were two distinctly different learning conditions implemented in terms of high and low levels of contextual variability in the presentation of learning materials, and the program provided all participants with precise and instant feedback after each completed trial. The variations in the Speed of Response and Mental Effort during the learning/acquisition process indicated that the first twenty trials for both the Novice and Expert learners were associated with relatively high levels of conscious Working Memory processing including the generous applications of germane resources by both Novices and Experts. The second stage of the learning/acquisition process (Phase II) between twenty and eighty trials could be interpreted as representing the implicit acquisition of linguistic competence phase, and it is precisely this phase where the second language learners would be expected to obtain access to the special language faculty and the Universal Grammar with its innate principles and parameters settings. The third phase of the learning/acquisition process between eighty and two hundred trials involved complex cognitive skill automation whereby the newly acquired (or implicitly mapped out onto the innate cognitive networks) grammatical concepts could be retrieved from the Long-Term Memory with the greatest of ease and applied with the highest possible Speed of Response, the greatest conceivable Accuracy of Response, and being accompanied by negligible levels of Mental Effort. Another important aspect of the second language learning/acquisition process was highlighted by Felix (1985) who maintained that adult’s higher levels of cognitive processing abilities generally and problem solving capabilities specifically competed as well as interfered with the Universal Grammar principles/parameters setting progressions and the natural second language acquisition process while the innate special language faculty was perfectly capable of supporting development of complete grammatical competence in both first and second language languages.

The results of this research project indicate that the implicit nature of the experimental design as a whole and the implicit nature of the language acquisition activities per se concurrently supported the acquisition of both implicit linguistic competence and implicit linguistic performance. In such a case, subsequent explicit formal analyses of previously implicitly acquired linguistic competence would primarily serve to develop the surface metalanguage, i.e., language to talk about language. It is likely that explicit formal analyses would evoke and encode, through conscious abstract elaborations, further contexts and novel associations for the analysed grammatical concepts enriching and expanding the concept schemas in themselves. Such conscious abstract elaborations would be likely to improve learners’ transfer skills to apply these newly acquired grammatical competences within a greater range of suitable situations and contexts. While the predominantly implicit nature of the communicative approach to second language acquisition is likely to principally support the development of communicative performance (Ellis, 2002), the formal instructional methodology relies on explicit presentations of declarative knowledge (developing conscious grammatical knowledge) followed by cognitive transformations of this initial knowledge into implicit procedural skills through automation focused practice (Anderson, 1983). In contrast, the implicit language acquisition methodology developed for this research project represents a compressed form of the natural first language acquisition environment and involves the initial swift and self-instructional goal-free conscious learning of syntax and function, implicit acquisition of linguistic competence, and the subconscious automation and implicit development of linguistic performance. In doing so, this methodology effectively addresses and rectifies two fundamental pedagogical problems: the lack of focus on development of syntax in the communicative approach, and the potential inefficiencies and cognitive limitations inherent in converting explicit grammatical knowledge into subconscious and automatic procedural performance skills that presently co-exist in the explicit formal instructional approach to second language learning.

Anderson, J. (1983). The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Chomsky, N. (1981a). ‘Principles and parameters in syntactic theory’ in Hornstein and Lightfoot (eds.) 1981. Cook, V. (1977). ‘Cognitive processes in second language learning’. International Review of Applied Linguistics 15: 1-20. Ellis, R. (1985b). ‘The L2=L1 Hypothesis: a reconciliation’. Systems 13: 9-24. Ervin-Tripp, S. (1974). ‘Is second language learning like first?’ TESOL Quarterly 8: 111-27. Felix, S. (1978). ‘Some differences between first and second language acquisition’ in Waterson and Snow (eds.) 1978. Klein, W. (1990). ‘A theory of language acquisition is not easy’. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12: 219-31. Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon. Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman. LaBerge, D. and S. J. Samuels. (1974). ‘Towards a Theory of Automatic Information Processing in Reading’. Cognitive Psychology 6: 293-323. McLaughlin, B. (1978a). Second Language in Childhood. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. McLaughlin, B. (1985). Second Language in Childhood, Vol. 2: School-age Children. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of Second Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold. McLaughlin, B. (1990a). ‘Restructuring’. Applied Linguistics 11: 113-28. Rutherford, W. (1988). Second Language Grammar: Learning and Teaching. London: Longman. Schmidt, R. (1990). ‘The role of consciousness in second language learning’. Applied Linguistics 11: 129-58. Selinker, L. (1972). ‘Interlanguage’. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10: 209-31. Sharwood-Smith, M. (1981). ‘Consciousness-raising and the second language learner’. Applied Linguistics 2: 159-69. Shiffrin, R. and W. Schneider. (1977). ‘Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory’. Psychological Review 84: 127-90. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving. Cognitive Science 12 (2): 257-85. Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.