Explicit vs implicit teaching

Hernández and Rodríguez-González (2013) carried out a comparative study in relation to the acquisition of DMs by Spanish students. They studied two groups of Spanish students in their fifth semester. Table 5 below summarises the differences between the experimental and control groups.

Experimental Group Control Group

Explicit instruction and input flooding Input flooding only Explicit information concerning DMs No explicit information Flooding of written input (containing DMs) No flooding of written input Communicative practice Communicative practice

Feedback on DMs No feedback on DMs

Table 5: Acquisition of discourse markers by Spanish students

For their study, Hernández and Rodríguez-González (2013) defined input flooding as the process whereby students receive a “flood of written input containing the target forms” (p. 3). The outcomes of their research showed that both forms of instruction (explicit and implicit) had a positive effect on the students’ use of DMs. However, the findings also indicated that explicit teaching integrated with input flooding was more influential than implicit teaching when using DMs for structuring speech (Hernández & Rodríguez- González, 2013). The authors argued that “explicit instruction can be a powerful tool for making L2 learners aware of new form-meaning relationships and promoting their subsequent use in speaking tasks” (p. 26).

Moreover, a number of studies examined the impact of DMs instruction on different language skills in an EFL context. For instance, Sadeghi and Heidaryan (2012) investigated the effect of teaching pragmatic DMs on EFL learners’ listening comprehension, and whether specific DM instruction could improve learners’ listening

comprehension in academic speech. The results of their study revealed that the experimental and control groups performed differently in both tests (pre-test and post- test). The researchers noted that instruction benefited the EFL learners, and they asserted that teaching DMs “will improve students’ ability to cope with content information provided in lectures” (Sadeghi and Heidaryan, 2012, p. 172).

In a similar study, Aidinlou and Shahrokhi mehr (2012) explored teaching textual DMs for the improvement of writing skills, and examined the impact of DM instruction on students’ writing abilities, as well as coherence at the pragmatic level. They found that teaching DMs helped to raise the learners’ awareness of discourse and enhance their writing levels; therefore, they argued that more attention should be paid to teaching text markers to learners, because “When we are planning to write a well-organized text, cohesion and coherence must be taken into consideration” (p. 10).

Coherence in speaking is as significant as in writing. Thus, it can be argued that to give a good oral presentation, learners should use cohesive devices (DMs) which will enhance the flow and coherence of the speech. In addition, Aidinlou and Shahrokhi mehr (2012) found that “explicit teaching of DMs seems to influence all language skills since they are important components of language” (p. 15). As Innajih (2007), cited in Aidinlou and Shahrokhi mehr, (2012) stated, teaching DMs explicitly to EFL learners has a positive impact on the students’ language skills, which is clearly demonstrated by the studies discussed above. As such, teachers should pay more attention to teaching these markers. Some classroom research, such as a study conducted by Rahimi and Riasati (2012), has investigated the effects of explicit vs. implicit instruction of interpersonal DMs on students’ oral output. In their research, Rahimi and Riasati (2012) found that students in the experimental group (who received explicit instruction) used DMs more frequently

than students in the control group. Thus, they concluded that explicit instruction is more effective than implicit. Furthermore, they argued that the means of achieving native-like language is through the use of interpersonal DMs, which they defined as a “group of cohesive devices that cause the cohesion and smoothness of language” (Rahimi & Riasati, 2012, p. 70). Rahimi and Riasati’s study is relevant to the current study in a number of ways. First, the main focus is learners’ oral output/ production of the target DMs. Second, their definition of DMs provided key reason for using SDMs in my study.

The arguments discussed in this section suggest that using DMs appropriately in speech will help learners speak naturally. Furthermore, in highlighting the significance of DMs in enhancing the naturalness and coherence of speech, the studies also emphasize the importance of teaching DMs explicitly in EFL classes.

The three studies discussed here (Aidinlou & Shahrokhi mehr, 2012; Rahimi & Riasati, 2012; Sadeghi & Heidaryan, 2012) contain some similarities and differences. All were applied in the EFL context, included both experimental and control groups, and incorporated explicit and implicit instruction. All revealed the same findings, namely that explicit instruction has a positive impact on learners’ achievements. However, the primary difference is that each study focused on a different aspect of EFL learning: writing skills, oral production, and listening comprehension, respectively. In all studies, the addition of a delayed test would have been beneficial for measuring the long-term effects of DM instruction on learners’ language acquisition.

Jones (2009) carried out a small-scale study with two groups of ESL learners living in a native English-speaking environment in the United Kingdom, both of which were given the same DMs using two teaching approaches: III and PPP. The III framework is based

on the noticing hypothesis which, as Jones (2009) observed, enables learners to “notice” the language not “practise” it. In contrast, the PPP approach involves the practising of taught DMs in the classroom. Jones (2009) based his selection of the taught DMs on two aspects: first, they were high frequency words in British English; second, they represented a variety of interpersonal functions. The research design for the study comprised several different aspects and stages:

• Pre-test, teaching (III and PPP), immediate post-test. • Learners’ diaries.

• Learners’ interviews (based on the usefulness of studying, practising and noticing).

(Jones, 2009, p. 9) The results of this small-scale study demonstrated that PPP had a considerable effect on learners’ use of the taught DMs, and Jones (2009) noted that the “PPP approach had a greater impact on their use of target DMs immediately following the study” (p. 13).

Jones (2009) highlighted a couple of key findings: first, in both groups (III and PPP), more DMs were used in the post-test than in the pre-test; second, all the learners agreed that learning DMs was useful, and made positive comments in their diaries concerning the LA approach, but also found practice helpful. Therefore, Jones (2009) suggested that teachers “need to experiment with activities which allow learners to reflect upon and discuss aspects of spoken grammar and not always feel the need to rush into giving language practice, especially as classroom time is always limited” (p. 14). In addition, Jones (2009) claimed that a more comprehensive study would include large groups over a long period of time, incorporating a delayed test and the use of a control group with which to compare each experimental group and show the effect of teaching DMs on

learners’ acquisition. It is important to note that this small-scale study cannot guarantee the same outcomes would happen with different learners (Jones, 2009).

A follow-up study carried out by Jones (2010) included the components of the more comprehensive study he had identified in his previous research (a larger sample, a control group, and a delayed test). In the later study, Jones (2010) discussed the reasons for teaching DMs explicitly and the effect of using two teaching methods for DM instruction. He (2010) argued that there are many reasons for teaching DMs explicitly, namely: frequency, usefulness, multifunctionality, lack of salience, and implicit testing. Moreover, that DMs have various useful functions, for example “showing listenership” (Jones, 2010, p. 85). Indeed, Jones suggested that students who fail to understand the main functions of DMs will experience greater difficulty in exchanging ideas, and that this will lead to communication breakdowns. In addition to exploring why DMs should be taught, Jones (2010) examined how they can best be taught. He investigated two approaches: PPP and LA, the latter was intended to help students notice DMs without practising them. The results of the study showed that the “PPP teaching approach lead to greater increase in usage of the target DMs in an immediate post-test” (Jones, 2010, p. 88). Finally, Jones (2010) concluded that “DMs are worthy of at least some classroom attention” (p. 89).

Jones’ (2009, 2010) research provides a sound basis for the current study in terms of his application of two different teaching methods, but several factors should be taken into consideration. What works in an ESL context might not work in an EFL context, as ESL students are exposed to language use and practice (English-native-speaker environment) more than EFL learners. Jones (2009) based his selection of target DMs on the most frequent words in NS speech, which learners in an ESL environment are exposed to every

day. Thus, Jones’ (2009) use of the LA approach was reasonable, given that the study participants were in a native-speaking environment; however, this approach may be less applicable in an EFL environment.

Most of the studies reviewed in this section focused on the use and frequency of DMs, and compared NNS with NS. The results of all the studies indicate that NS are likely to use more DMs in speech than NNS, and explicit teaching is the most effective way to teach DMs in order for the learners to notice and use them. In the following section, studies focused on explicit instruction of DMs were explained.