Skill Acquisition Theory (SAT) is a cognitive theory of learning, applied to SLA primarily by Robert DeKeyser. It draws on Anderson's (1982, 1993, 2007) ACT (Adaptive Control of Thought) framework and proposes that language learning follows the same path as learning any complex cognitive skill, from driving a car to writing computer programs.
Procedural knowledge does not transfer well, even to seemingly similar tasks. Comprehension training doesn't significantly reduce production errors; production training doesn't hinder comprehension. This means practice must be task-specific, not generic (De Jong, 2005; Li & DeKeyser, 2017).
Implication for PPP: A "Produce" phase that asks learners to use the target form in a different mode (e.g., writing after oral drills) may not achieve transfer. Practice must match the target use context.
DeKeyser & Suzuki are careful: SAT does not claim explicit knowledge "turns into" implicit knowledge. As Paradis (2009) stresses, this never happens in the brain. Rather, explicit declarative knowledge, through proceduralisation and automatisation, can lead to knowledge that is functionally equivalent to implicit knowledge: fast, accurate, and robust, even if neurologically distinct.
Simpler rules tend to be learned explicitly; complex and probabilistic patterns are hard to induce, comprehend, or proceduralise, and may benefit more from implicit learning (Ferman et al., 2009). SAT acknowledges a "synergy" between implicit and explicit learning, the very word Jason Anderson borrows for TATE.
Proceduralisation "cannot get started if the right conditions are not present": it requires both the declarative knowledge AND a task setup that allows use of that knowledge (Anderson, Fincham, & Douglass, 1997). The combination of abstract rules and concrete examples is necessary to cross the "declarative threshold."
SAT is the theoretical framework Anderson draws on to justify PPP:
This mapping makes PPP appear theoretically grounded. However, there are critical problems with this application.
Jordan's critique of Anderson doesn't target SAT directly, but challenges the leap from "SAT exists as a theory" to "therefore PPP works." Even if SAT's stages are valid in principle, it doesn't follow that a Synthetic Syllabus presenting structures in an arbitrary order via PPP is the best way to achieve proceduralisation. SAT would predict that practice only works when the learner has the declarative knowledge to proceduralise, and developmental readiness research suggests learners can only form that declarative knowledge for structures they're ready for.
DeKeyser & Suzuki are more cautious than PPP advocates: