Impact of explicit instruction on EFL learners’ implicit and explicit knowledge: A case of English relative clauses

Abstract

The present study sought to investigate the effect of explicit instruction (direct proactive explicit instruction) on the acquisition of English passive objective relative clauses. Two groups of participants were involved in the study; a group of advanced EFL learners (n = 16) and a group of intermediate EFL learners (n = 37) who were randomly divided to two groups of experimental (n = 22) and control (n = 15). The experimental group received 4 sessions of explicit instruction on the target structure. The control group, however, did their routine activities in a writing class. There were three test times, namely a pre-, post-, and delayed post-tests. Two separate measures of explicit and implicit knowledge were applied; an offline test of metalinguistic knowledge (an error correction task) and two online speeded tests of implicit knowledge (a self-paced-reading task and a stop-making sense task). The findings revealed a positive effect of explicit instruction for both implicit and explicit knowledge for the treatment group. Durable effects of explicit instruction were found based on the results obtained from the delayed post-test. The advanced group performed very closely to the treatment group, indicating the effect of explicit instruction in accelerating language learning, as well as the necessity of explicit instruction for some language forms to be acquired in EFL contexts.

 

Keywords: Explicit/explicit instruction; implicit/explicit knowledge; online/offline tests; English reduced relative clauses 

Keywords

• Explicit/explicit instruction; implicit/explicit knowledge; online/offline tests; English reduced relative clauses

References

1. Allen, D. (2004). Oxford placement test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Akakura, M. (2012). Evaluating the effectiveness of explicit instruction on implicit and explicit knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 16 (1), 9-37.
3. Batstone, R. & Ellis, R. (2009). Principled grammar teaching. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 37, 194–204.
4. Bley-Vroman, R. (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis, 20 (1/2), 3-49.
5. Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learner's errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5, 161-69.
6. DeKeyser, R. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 379-410.
7. DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
8. DeKeyser, R. (2007). Introduction: Situating the concept of practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a Second Language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology (pp. 1-18). New York: Cambridge University Press.

9. Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study on SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431-469.
10. Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition: Learning in the classroom. Oxford/Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
11. Ellis, R. (1993). Second language acquisition and the structural syllabus. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 91- 113.
12. Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13. Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A review of the research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 223-36.
14. Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric Study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141-172.
15. Ellis, R. (2008). Explicit knowledge and second language learning and pedagogy. In J. Cenoz & N.H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Volume 6: Knowledge about language (pp. 143–153). 2nd edition. New York: Springer.
16. Ellis, R. (2009). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language. In R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, R. Erlam, J. Philp, & H. Reinders (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (pp. 31-64). Bristol/Buffalo, NY/ Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
17. Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philp, J., & Reinders, H. (2009). Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching. Bristol/Buffalo, NY/Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
18. Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language acquisition: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. (Target article) Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143-188.
19. Felser, C. (2005). Experimental psycholinguistic approaches to second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 21, 95-97.
20. Felser, C., Marinis, T., Clahsen, H., & Gross, L. (2003). Children's processing of ambiguous sentences: A study of relative clause attachment. Language Acquisition, 11, 127-163.
21. Frenck-Mestre, C. (2004). Ambiguities and anomalies: What can eye-movements and event-related potentials reveal about second language sentence processing? In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. De Groot (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 268-284). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Gass, S.M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23. Hopp, H. (2010). Ultimate attainment in L2 inflection: performance similarities between non-native and native speakers. Lingua, 120, 901-931.
24. Hulstijn, J. (1989). Implicit and incidental second language learning: Experiments in the processing of natural and partly artificial input. In H. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Interlingual Processes (pp. 49-73). Tubingen: Gunter Narr.
25. Hulstijn, J. (2002). Towards a unified account of the representation, processing and acquisition of second language knowledge. Second Language Research, 18, 193–223.
26. Hulstijn, J. H., & de Graaff, R. (1994). Under what conditions does explicit knowledge of a second language facilitate the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A research proposal. AILA Review, 11, 97–112.
27. Jiang, N. (2012). Conducting reaction time research in second language studies. New York: Routledge
28. Juffs, A. (1998). Main verb vs. reduced relative clause ambiguity resolution in L2 sentence processing. Language Learning, 48, 107-147.
29. Juffs, A. (2001). Psycholinguistically oriented second language research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 207-220.
30. Juffs, A. (2006). Processing reduced relative versus main verb ambiguity in English as a second language: A replication study with working memory. In R. Slabakova, S. Montrul, & P. Prévost (Eds.), Inquiries in linguistic development in honor of Lydia White (pp. 213-234). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
31. Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Wolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 228-238.
32. Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford, England: Pergamon.
33. Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
34. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. London: Pergamon.
35. Krashen, S. (1993). The effect of formal grammar teaching: Still peripheral. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 409-411.
36. Krashen, S. (2008). Language Education: Past, Present and Future. RELC Journal, 39, 2, 178-187.
37. MacDonald, M. C. (1994). Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and cognitive processes, 9, 157-201.
38. Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557-87.
39. Marinis, T. (2003). Psycholinguistic techniques in second language acquisition research. Second Language Research, 19(2), 144–161.
40. Marinis, T. (2010). Using on-line processing methods in language acquisition research. In S. Unsworth, & E. Blom (Eds.), Experimental methods in second language research (pp. 139-162). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
41. McDonough, K. & Trofimovich, P. (2012). How to use psycholinguistic methodologies for comprehension and production. In A. Mackey, & S. Gass (Eds.), Research methods in second language acquisition (pp. 117-138). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
42. Nassaji, H. & Fotos, S. (2004). Current developments in research on the teaching of grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 126-45.
43. Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.
44. Rah, A., & Adone, D. (2010). Processing of the reduced relatives clause verb ambiguity in L2 learners at different proficiency levels. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 79-109.
45. Roberts, L. (2012). Psycholinguistic techniques and resources in second language acquisition research. Second Language Research, 28(1), 113–127.
46. Robinson, P. (1996). Learning simple and complex rules under implicit, incidental rule-search conditions, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 27-67.
47. Sharwood Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 2, 159-169.
48. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
49. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50. Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case- study of an adult learner. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 237-326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
51. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). The influence of planning and post-task activities on accuracy and complexity in task based learning. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–211.
52. Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task design and second language performance. The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58, 439-473.
53. Terrell, T. (1991). The role of grammar instruction in a communicative approach. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 52–63.
54. Tode, T. (2007). Durability problems with explicit instruction in an EFL context: the learning of the English copula ‘be’ before and after the introduction of the auxiliary ‘be’. Language Teaching Research, 11 (1), 11-30.
55. VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
56. Williams, J., Mobius, P., & Kim, C. (2001). Native and non-native processing of English wh- questions: Parsing strategies and plausibility constraints. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 509-540.
57. Yuan, F. & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1-27. Açık öğretmenin yabancı dil olarak İngilizce öğrenenlerin örtülü ve
58. açık bilgileri üzerindeki etkisi: İngilizce ilgi cümlecikleri vakası