Implicit or Explicit Instruction

drawn to language form. The differentiation between the two arises as a result of, “… the provision of metapragmatic information designed to make target features more salient” (Rose, 2005, p. 393). If the instruction does not provide any metapragmatic rule to the student, the design is considered implicit. Reasoning from this fact, Ó Duibhir, Ní Dhiorbháin and Cosgrave (2016, p. 38) contend that, in order for instruction to be regarded as explicit in nature, the grammatical rule is required to be explained to the students at some point during the lesson.

Both implicit and explicit approaches are continuously compared and contrasted against each other. Interestingly, numerous research studies indicate the supremacy of ex- plicit grammar instruction over implicit grammar instruction (See Jeon & Kaya, 2006; Kasper, 2001; Rose, 2005 for reviews). In a meta-analysis and research syntheses of the effectiveness of L2 instruction between 1980-1998, Norris & Ortega (2000) compared for- ty-nine studies that investigated the effectiveness of the implicit/explicit debate on L2 ac- quisition. The researchers conclude that, on average, explicit instructional techniques leads to more gains than implicit instruction. Subsequently, Spada and Tomita (2010) conducted a meta-analysis of forty-one separate studies from 1990-2006 which evaluated the effects of explicit and implicit teaching approaches on the acquisition of simple and complex grammatical features of English as an L2. The results revealed that sixty-three per cent of participants utilised an implicit approach to grammar instruction and the remaining were regarded as explicit grammar instruction studies. Upon calculation and comparison of the varying studies’ effect sizes, the researchers revealed, again, that explicit instruction was more effective than implicit instruction, in acquiring both simple and complex grammatical forms. Furthermore, it appeared that explicit instruction was more effective in sustaining long term results, which was illustrated by a limited number of delayed post-test results (Spada & Tomita, 2010), which is further supported by Norris and Ortega (2000).

Appropriately, literature provides principle explanations for the supremacy of ex- plicit grammar instruction approaches. For example, as implicit instruction does not neces- sarily require direct instruction of grammatical features, many argue that, in availing of such an instructional approach, it may be difficult to ensure students are using and acquir- ing correct linguistic forms (Kirschner, Sweller, Clark, 2006). On the other hand, explicit approaches provide students with definite linguistic rules that may ensure accurate L2 use and might foster a more accurate L2 use. On this note, Glaser (2014a) argues that the abil-

46

ity of an explicit instructional approach to draw a student’s conscious attention to language features makes it, “facilitative” (p. 53) of SLA. In keeping with this, Lyster (2007, p. 29) highlights the necessity of explicit instruction, as he claims that if a student’s attention is not explicitly drawn to linguistic features, “… the cognitive predispositions of L2 learners interact with classroom input in ways that restrict the incidental assimilation of specific target features and grammatical subsystems”. This argued pre-eminence of explicit instruc- tion is in keeping with Schmidt’s (1990, 2012) Noticing Hypothesis (Section 2.4). Similar- ly, Takahashi (2001) determines that implicit instructional approaches often fail to provide students with an appropriate level of guided assistance in noticing and acquiring new lin- guistic forms, which further strengthens the case for explicit instruction. From a sociocul- tural perspective, Ohta (2005) investigated the results of three studies that focused directly on the effects of explicit/implicit dichotomy in enhancing a student’s ZPD. Ohta (2005) concluded that explicit instruction enhances the ability of a teacher to provide an appropri- ate level of scaffold to their students within their individual ZPD, which is critical in the overall language development process. It should be noted at this point that, within each study, findings generally mark the promoting factor of explicit grammar instructional ap- proaches to lie in their ability to scaffold a student’s learning in accordance with their de- veloping capacities.

It is worth mentioning, however, that although a general consensus appears to exist in favour of explicit grammar instruction, other studies have revealed that the effects of implicit and explicit instruction are often comparable (Martínez-Flor, 2006). In brief, Nor- ris and Ortega (2000, p. 501) conclude that implicit instructional methods may require longer post-intervention observation periods in order to fully detect and investigate the true capacity of implicit instruction (see also, Spada & Tomita, 2010). Notwithstanding the evi- dence provided in this section, the implicit/explicit debate remains in its infancy and fur- ther longitudinal research studies are required to adequately establish if one or the other is more effective in fostering SLA. That being said, little or no research exists which pro- motes implicit instruction over explicit instruction. Such an argument is clearly depicted by Glaser (2014a, p. 58), who maintains that “… while it cannot be said with certainty that an explicit design will be more effective than its implicit counterpart, all evidence points to the conclusion that it will not be less successful”. In support, it is relevant to recall Har- ley’s (1993) assertion discussed in Section 2.6 that certain L2 forms require explicit in- struction to ensure accurate language learning and development, which then further strengthens the case of explicit grammar instruction. Given such inconsistency among re-

47

searchers, oftentimes, implicit/explicit approaches are combined with another dichotomy in search of a superior approach to grammar instruction. This dichotomy includes both induc- tive and deductive approaches to grammar instruction and thus warrants further investiga- tion.

2.7.2. Inductive or Deductive Instruction. Glaser (2014b) maintains that both