A Comparison of Implicit and Explicit Teaching in Terms of Grammar and Writing Skills of Intermediate Learners

Abstract

Teaching grammar has always been a very popular issue in the field of language studies. Explicit and implicit teachings are the main methods that are being applied for years in this field. This paper compares these two methods in terms of grammar success. Integrating this grammar knowledge to writing skills appropriately is another aim of this study. 40 intermediate university students whose ages are between 18-22 participated in this study. With pre and posttest and pre and post writings, a quantitative method was applied in this paper. T-tests, ANCOVA and descriptive statistics were identified with the aid of SPSS. Writing scores of both groups also were evaluated by two raters and the number of grammar mistakes was calculated. As a result of this study, a significant difference between pre and posttest was found. In addition, the explicit group's grammar and writing points were really better than the implicit group and the former group made fewer mistakes in their writings. This paper points out the significance of the explicit teaching method and gives the advice to administer and teachers about integrating these types of methods into language courses and curriculums. 

Keywords

• grammar,implicit teaching,explicit teaching,writing

References

1. Akakura, M. A. (2009). Effect of explicit instruction on implicit and explicit second language knowledge: An empirical study on English article acquisition (Doctoral dissertation, University of Auckland).
2. Akakura, M. (2012). Evaluating the effectiveness of explicit instruction on implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 16(1), 9-37.
3. Andrews, K. L. Z. (2007). The Effects of Implicit and Explicit Instruction on Simple and Complex Grammatical Structures for Adult English Language Learners. TESL-EJ, 11(2), 1-15.
4. Andringa, S., de Glopper, K., & Hacquebord, H. (2011). Effect of explicit and implicit instruction on free written response task performance. Language Learning, 61(3), 868-903.
5. Anthony, L. (2000). Implementing genre analysis in a foreign language classroom. TESOL Matters, 10(3), 18.
6. Bhatia, V. K. (1997). The Power and Politics of Genre. World Englishes,16(3), 359-371. doi:10.1111/1467-971x.00070
7. Brown, H. D. (2002). Principles of language learning and teaching. Beijing. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 85-87.
8. Burgess, J., & Etherington, S. (2002). Focus on grammatical form: explicit or implicit?. System, 30(4), 433-458.

9. Dekeyser, R. M. (1995). Learning Second Language Grammar Rules. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,17(3), 379-410. doi:10.1017/s027226310001425x
10. DeKeyser, R. M. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313-348). Oxford: Blackwell.
11. Deng, F., & Lin, Y. (2016). A Comparative Study on Beliefs of Grammar Teaching between High School English Teachers and Students in China. English Language Teaching, 9(8), 1-10.
12. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University.
13. Ellis, R. (2001). Form-focused instruction and second language learning: Language learning monograph. Wiley-Blackwell.
14. Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33(2), 209-224.
15. Ellis, R. (2008). Explicit knowledge and second language learning and pedagogy. Encyclopedia of language and education, 1901-1911.
16. Erlam, R. (2003). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the acquisition of direct object pronouns in French as a second language. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 242-260.
17. Hammerly, H. (1975). The deduction/induction controversy. The Modern Language Journal, 59(1/2), 15-18.
18. Hammond, J., & Derewianka, B. (2001). Genre. The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages,186-193. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511667206.028
19. Herron, C., & Tomasello, M. (1992). Acquiring grammatical structures by guided induction. The French Review, 65(5), 708-718.
20. Hinkel, E., & Fotos, S. (2001). The Place of Grammar Instruction in the Second/Foreign Language Curriculum. In New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classrooms (pp. 27-44). Routledge.
21. Hinkel, E., & Fotos, S. (2001). Structure-based interactive tasks for the EFL grammar learner. In New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 147-166). Routledge.
22. Hulstijn, J. H. (2005). Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-language learning: Introduction. Studies in second language acquisition, 27(2), 129-140.
23. Khodabandeh, F. (2016). Comparing the Effects of Four Instructional Treatments on EFL Students' Achievement in Writing Classified Ads. English Language Teaching, 9(3), 139-152.
24. Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford University Press.
25. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition (pp. 65-78). Pergamon: Oxford.
26. Lightbown, P. M. (1998). The importance of timing in focus on form. Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, 177196.
27. Long, W. (1988). Instructed interlanguagedevelopment In LM Beebe (Ed.), lssues in second language acquisition.
28. Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective, 2(1), 39-52.
29. Macaro, E., & Masterman, L. (2006). Does intensive explicit grammar instruction make all the difference?. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 297-327.
30. Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2004). 6. Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126-145.
31. Nazari, N. (2013). The effect of implicit and explicit grammar instruction on learners’ achievements in receptive and productive modes. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 156-162.
32. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta‐analysis. Language learning, 50(3), 417-528.
33. Nunan, D. (1991). 10 Linguistic theory and pedagogic practice. Perspectives on pedagogical grammar, 253.
34. Ranalli, J. M. (2001). Consciousness-raising versus deductive approaches to language instruction: a study of learner preferences. Unpublished Master’s thesis. The Centre for English Language Studies, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
35. Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions. Studies in second language acquisition, 18(1), 27-67.
36. Rosa, E., & O'Neill, M. D. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness: Another piece to the puzzle. Studies in second language acquisition, 21(4), 511-556.
37. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (1986). Approaches andmethods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38. Scott, V. M. (1989). An empirical study of explicit and implicit teaching strategies in French. The Modern Language Journal, 73(1), 14-22.
39. Scott, V. M. (1990). Explicit and implicit grammar teaching strategies: New empirical data. The French Review, 63(5), 779-789.
40. Seliger, H. W. (1975). Maturational constraints in the acquisition of second language accent. Language Sciences, 36, 20-22.
41. Shaffer, C. (1989). A comparison of inductive and deductive approaches to teaching foreign languages. Modern Language Journal.
42. Sheen, R. (2002). Focus on form’and ‘focus on forms. ELT journal, 56(3), 303-305.
43. Sik, K. (2015). Tradition or modernism in grammar teaching: deductive vs. inductive approaches. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 2141-2144.
44. Lynch, L. M. (2005). Grammar teaching: Implicit or explicit. Retrieved July, 20, 2010.
45. Lynch, L. M. (2005). Grammar teaching: Implicit or explicit. Retrieved July, 20, 2010.
46. Widodo, H. (2006). Designing a genre-based lesson plan for an academic writing course. English Teaching, 5(3), 173.