The maze task is an online activity in which participants continually select between two words to form grammatical sentences. This study investigated whether the maze task facilitates production and perception accuracy in English for Cambodian secondary-school learners. Participants (N = 101) practiced target sentences in the maze task with either morphological or syntactic choices, whereas a control group practiced unrelated sentences. Learning within the task was assessed via error rates, response times, and the coefficient of variation across 10 rounds. Transfer was evaluated with time-pressured oral translation and grammaticality judgment tests (GJTs). Results showed evidence of proceduralization and automatization for the maze task itself, and all participants improved in both the oral tests and in perceiving morphological errors in the GJTs. However, there was no evidence that this improvement was due to the maze training, since the control group improved to the same extent as the other groups. Exploratory analyses suggested that the tests themselves resulted in learning, with the probability of morphological error perception increasing with each successive trial of the two GJTs. The findings highlight the skill specificity of procedural knowledge, as posited in skill acquisition theory, and the pedagogical potential for GJTs.
AndersonJ.R.BothellD.ByrneM.D.DouglassS.LebiereC.QinY. (2004). An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1036–1060. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.1036
4.
AndersonJ.R.FinchamJ.M.DouglassS. (1999). Practice and retention: A unifying analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(5), 1120–1136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.25.5.1120
5.
BultéB.HousenA.PallottiG. (2025). Complexity and difficulty in second language acquisition: A theoretical and methodological overview. Language Learning, 75(2), 533–574. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12669
6.
Cintrón-ValentínM.C.EllisN.C. (2016). Salience in second language acquisition: Physical form, learner attention, and instructional focus. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 1284. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01284
7.
DeKeyserR.SuzukiY. (2025). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPattenB.KeatingG.D.WulffS. (Eds), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (4th ed., pp. 157–182). Routledge.
8.
EllisN.C.HafeezK.MartinK.I.ChenL.BolandJ.SagarraN. (2014). An eye-tracking study of learned attention in second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 35(3), 547–579. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716412000501
9.
EnkinE. (2016). Second language learning with the Story Maze task: Examining the training effect of weaving through stories. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 1–21.
10.
EnkinE.ForsterK. (2014). The maze task: Examining the training effect of using a psycholinguistic experimental technique for second language learning. Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching, 5(2), 161–180.
11.
FermanS.OlshtainE.SchechtmanE.KarniA. (2009). The acquisition of a linguistic skill by adults: Procedural and declarative memory interact in the learning of an artificial morphological rule. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22(4), 384–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2008.12.002
12.
GoldschneiderJ.M.DeKeyserR.M. (2001). Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51(1), 1–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00147
13.
GooJ.GranenaG.YilmazY.NovellaM. (2015). Norris & Ortega (2000) revisited and updated: Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning. In RebuschatP. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 443–482). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.48.18goo
14.
HanzawaK.SuzukiY. (2023). Does automaticity in lexical and grammatical processing predict utterance fluency development?: A six-month longitudinal study in Japanese EFL context. Journal of Second Language Studies, 6(2), 290–318. https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.22007.han
15.
HousenA.SimoensH. (2016). Introduction: Cognitive perspectives on difficulty and complexity in L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(2), 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263116000176
16.
KimJ.W.RitterF.E.KoubekR.J. (2013). An integrated theory for improved skill acquisition and retention in the three stages of learning. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 14(1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/1464536X.2011.573008
17.
LysterR.SatoM. (2013). Skill Acquisition Theory and the role of practice in L2 development. In delM.García MayoP.Gutiérrez MangadoM.J.Martínez-AdriánM. (Eds), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 71–92). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.9.07ch4
18.
MaieR.GodfroidA. (2025). Testing the three-stage model of second language skill acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 47(2), 617–649. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226312500021X
19.
MurakamiA.AlexopoulouT. (2016). L1 influence on the acquisition order of English grammatical morphemes: A learner corpus study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3), 365–401. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000352
20.
NewellA.RosenbloomP.S. (1981). Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. In AndersonJ.R. (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 1–55). Psychology Press.
21.
NorrisJ.M.OrtegaL. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00136
22.
OliveiraC.S.F.CostaE.D.S.CanabravaK.L.R.BarrosN.A.S. (2020). Examining the use of an online version of the maze task as a pedagogical tool for second language learning. Veredas - Revista de Estudos Linguísticos, 24(1), 361–388. https://doi.org/10.34019/1982-2243.2020.v24.30636
23.
OliveiraC.S.F.SáT.M.M.GonçalvesR.S.ViegasJ.B. (2023). The maze task mobile: Using a psycholinguistic experimental technique as a pedagogical tool for language learning. Scripta, 27(59), Article 59. https://doi.org/10.5752/P.2358-3428.2023v27n59p118-147
24.
Pili-MossD.Brill-SchuetzK.A.Faretta-StutenbergM.Morgan-ShortK. (2020). Contributions of declarative and procedural memory to accuracy and automatization during second language practice. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(3), 639–651. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728919000543
SagarraN.EllisN.C. (2013). From seeing adverbs to seeing verbal morphology: Language experience and adult acquisition of L2 tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(2), 261–290. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000885
27.
SchmidtR. (2001). Attention. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003
28.
SegalowitzN.S.SegalowitzS.J. (1993). Skilled performance, practice, and the differentiation of speed-up from automatization effects: Evidence from second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14(3), 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400010845
29.
SerfatyJ.SerranoR. (2024). Practice makes perfect, but how much is necessary? The role of relearning in second language grammar acquisition. Language Learning, 74(1), 218–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12585
30.
SlabakovaR. (2013). What is easy and what is hard to acquire in a second language: A generative perspective. In García MayoM.P.Gutiérrez MangadoM.J.Martínez-AdriánM. (Eds), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 5–28). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.9.04ch1
31.
SpadaN.TomitaY. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.x
32.
SuzukiY.DeKeyserR. (2015). Comparing elicited imitation and word monitoring as measures of implicit knowledge. Language Learning, 65(4), 860–895. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12138
33.
SuzukiS.KormosJ. (2023). The multidimensionality of second language oral fluency: Interfacing cognitive fluency and utterance fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 45(1), 38–64. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263121000899
34.
SuzukiY. (2017). The optimal distribution of practice for the acquisition of L2 morphology: A conceptual replication and extension. Language Learning, 67(3), 512–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12236
35.
SuzukiY. (2023). Introduction: Practice and automatization in a second language. In SuzukiY. (Ed.), Practice and automatization in second language research: Perspectives from skill acquisition theory and cognitive psychology (pp. 1–36). Routledge.
36.
SuzukiY.KoizumiR. (2023). Using equivalent test forms in SLA pretest-posttest design research. In WinkeP.BrunfautT. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and language testing (pp. 457–467). Routledge.
37.
SuzukiY.SunadaM. (2018). Automatization in second language sentence processing: Relationship between elicited imitation and maze tasks. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21(1), 32–46. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000857
38.
SuzukiY.SunadaM. (2020). Dynamic interplay between practice type and practice schedule in a second language: The potential and limits of skill transfer and practice schedule. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42(1), 169–197. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263119000470
39.
SuzukiY.JeongH.CuiH.OkamotoK.KawashimaR.SugiuraM. (2023). An fMRI validation study of the word-monitoring task as a measure of implicit knowledge: Exploring the role of explicit and implicit aptitudes in behavioral and neural processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 45(1), 109–136. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263122000043
40.
TenisonC.AndersonJ.R. (2016). Modeling the distinct phases of skill acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(5), 749–767. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000204
41.
TokowiczN.MacWhinneyB. (2005). Implicit and explicit measures of sensitivity to violations in second language grammar: An event-related potential investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 173–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050102
42.
VafaeeP.SuzukiY.KachisnkeI. (2017). Validating grammaticality judgment tests: Evidence from two new psycholinguistic measures. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(1), 59–95. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000455
