implicit knowledge

Despite the evidenced discipline-specificity and significance of lexical bundles (LBs) for academic reading and writing, interventionist research into the development of implicit and explicit knowledge of LBs in applied linguistics research reports, specifically the discussion section, is limited. Employing a quasi-experimental design, this study investigated how exposure to LBs through meaning-focused instruction of discussion sections of applied linguistics’ research articles compared with their explicit instruction in terms of their effect on LBs’ implicit and explicit knowledge. For this purpose, 53 intermediate proficiency MA students of English Language Teaching, comprising 2 intact “academic writing” classes were designated as two experimental groups: explicit instruction group (EIG; N = 27) and meaning-focused instruction group (MFG; N = 26). EIG was explicitly instructed on the structure and function of graphically enhanced LBs contained in the discussion section of 13 research articles. MFG, on the other hand, received meaning-focused instruction on the same texts. A set of pre- and post-tests comprising a timed grammaticality judgment test (GJT) and an oral elicited imitation test for gauging implicit knowledge of LBs, and an untimed GJT and a metalinguistic knowledge test (MKT) for measuring explicit knowledge of them were designed and deployed. One-way ANOVA results indicated EIG’s significant gain over MFG in terms of explicit LBs knowledge for both untimed GJT and MKT; however, no significant difference was detected for implicit knowledge measures between the two groups. The findings underscore the potential of explicit instruction for the development of explicit knowledge of LBs, and have implications for academic English instruction.

Lying within the dynamic landscape of language learning, task-based instruction has emerged as a prominent pedagogical approach. We examined the intersection of Task-based instruction and language learning in general and the pre-task explicit grammar instruction impact on the development of both explicit and implicit knowledge. Embedded within the task-based instruction framework, a pretest-posttest control group design was adopted to gather data. The participants consisted of two intact classes each with 18 pre-intermediate learners randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. The treatment comprised two 75-minute sessions, where the experimental group received pre-task explicit grammar instruction, whereas the control group received traditional teacher-fronted instructions more about the mechanical practice of isolated grammatical rules without embedding them in a communicative context. The findings indicated a significant impact of pre-task explicit grammar instruction on both explicit and implicit knowledge, with various substantial effects. This suggests that integrating focused grammar instruction before communicative tasks contributes to language learning. Implications of the study emphasize the potential benefits of incorporating pre-task explicit instruction in language teaching practices. Despite the limitations of the current investigation, including a relatively small sample size and a focus on a single linguistic feature, the results contribute valuable insights to optimizing task-based approaches for enhanced language learning outcomes.

The neurolinguistic approach (NLA) nests the claim that both internal and external grammars (i.e., implicit and explicit grammar knowledge) develop through an intensive orality-based pedagogy. The present study put this claim to the test focusing on Iranian English language learners’ development of implicit and explicit knowledge of definite and indefinite English articles (EAs). Forty-three Iranian English language learners constituting 2 intact lower-intermediate classes were randomly assigned to a control group (CG; N = 20) and an experimental group (EG; N = 23). EG underwent four 1.5-hr project-based sessions of NLA-based instruction on definite and indefinite EAs. Each session began and ended with authentic oral practice of the structure under study. There was (a) a paragraph reading phase followed by rule induction and (b) a writing phase in between the two oral practice phases. CG was presented with reading texts (amply instantiating EAs), rule explanation, and communicative tasks. A timed grammaticality judgment test and an EA-focused oral proficiency interview were employed to estimate the participants’ implicit knowledge, and an untimed grammaticality judgment test and a metalinguistic knowledge test were deployed to measure their explicit knowledge. ANOVA results showed (a) EG’s development of implicit and explicit knowledge of EAs, but CG’s development of only explicit knowledge of EAs, and (b) EG’s significantly greater gain in both knowledge types. The findings reveal NLA’s potential for the development of both types of knowledge concerning definite and indefinite EAs, and have implications for the intensive instruction of knotty structures for low proficiency L2 learners.

Although a great deal of research has been conducted on various aspects of implicit and explicit knowledge, very few research have examined how written corrective feedback (WCF) works on implicit and explicit grammatical knowledge. Inspired by this gap, the aim of the present study was to investigate whether the direct and indirect unfocused kinds of WCF can lead to an increase in the learning gains in terms of implicit and explicit grammatical knowledge. To that end, 90 participants selected from a statistical pool of 380 EFL learners in seven private English language institutes were assigned into two treatment groups and one control group via random matching technique to receive the intended treatment. Using MANCOVA and one-way ANCOVA statistical techniques, data related to two treatment groups and one control group were collected. The results showed that both types of direct and indirect unfocused WCF could increase the students’ implicit and explicit grammatical knowledge. The results also suggested that although both written feedbacks improved the learners' performance almost equally, the direct type of WCF was slightly more effective. The study concludes with implications for teachers regarding their use of appropriate types of written error correction.

Research on the effect of implicit and explicit instruction on developing learners’ explicit knowledge by the use of measures of explicit knowledge abounds in the literature. However, measuring learners’ implicit knowledge employing fine-grained measures has rarely been the concern of researchers in the field. Therefore, the present study is an attempt to scrutinize the effectiveness of implicit and explicit instruction through administering a Word Monitoring Task (WMT), as a more valid psycholinguistic measure of implicit knowledge. The necessary data were collected from 47 pre-intermediate participants in three different groups, i.e., (1) the implicit group received textually enhanced texts of verb complementation, (2) the explicit group was presented with metalinguistic explanations and examples of the target feature, and (3) the control group was deprived of any instruction. The results of the mixed between-within subjects ANOVA revealed that although both implicit and explicit instructions facilitated the development of the implicit knowledge of the target feature, the learners in the explicit group outperformed their counterparts in the implicit and the control groups in both the immediate and delayed post-tests. Moreover, the results indicated more durable effects of implicit instruction compared with those of explicit instruction. Overall, the findings provided evidence for the superiority of explicit instruction and the long-term effect of implicit instruction in developing relevant knowledge of verb complementation. The findings of the study can benefit both teachers and learners in developing teaching/learning strategies to improve and facilitate the grasp of both explicit and implicit knowledge.

Although explicit and implicit knowledge of language learners are essential to theoretical and pedagogical debates in second language acquisition (SLA), little research has addressed the effects of instructional interventions on the two knowledge types (R. Ellis, 2005). This study examined the relative effectiveness of explicit and implicit types of form-focused instruction (FFI) on the acquisition of four morphosyntactic features by four measures of explicit and implicit language knowledge. The measures included: oral elicited imitation, timed and untimed grammaticality judgment, and metalinguistic knowledge tests. A pretest and two posttests were conducted immediately and three weeks after the instructional interventions. Durable effects of FFI on low intermediate Iranian learners were found for the target language forms. In particular, explicit and implicit FFI positively facilitated the development of explicit and implicit knowledge of the target features, both immediately after the instructional interventions and, marginally decreasing, over time. Also, explicit FFI was more effective than implicit FFI as measured by both explicit and implicit knowledge tests. The findings may contribute to understanding of the efficacy of explicit and implicit FFI on L2 learners’ controlled (explicit) and spontaneous (implicit) use of morphosyntactic forms at relatively early stages of L2 acquisition.

This study investigated the relative effects of explicit and implicit form-focused instruction (FFI) on the acquisition of four simple and difficult morphosyntactic features as assessed by explicit and implicit outcome measures. Four tests were utilized to assess L2 learners'' acquisition: elicited oral imitation, timed and untimed grammaticality judgment, and metalinguistic knowledge tests. A pretest and two posttests were administered to 120 low pre-intermediate learners immediately and three weeks after the instructional treatments. Durable effects of FFI were found for simple and difficult language forms on both measures of explicit and implicit L2 knowledge. More specifically, the present study indicated that explicit FFI was significantly more beneficial for simple language features chosen according to their degree of difficulty based on the explicit knowledge criteria and implicit FFI was significantly more beneficial for simple language features selected according to their degree of difficulty based on the implicit knowledge criteria. The findings may promise implications for our understanding of the efficacy of explicit and implicit FFI on L2 learners’ controlled and spontaneous use of simple and difficult forms at early stages of L2 acquisition.