Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research has been analysing the effectiveness of different language acquisition processes. Whereas some findings suggest benefits through implicit acquisition processes, others believe explicit acquisition to be superior. The paper aims to identify current positions in the literature regarding the efficacy of implicit versus explicit language instruction, learning and knowledge, as well as learning difficulties for specific grammatical features when presented implicitly or explicitly and what the findings imply for the English as a Second Language (ESL) classroom.
In order to do so, a general literature review was used to analyse the most relevant findings in the field to answer the first question as well as a specific literature review of The Marsden Project by Elder, Ellis (Ed.), Erlam, Loewen, Philp & Reinders (2009) to answer the second research question.
Findings include support for both implicit and explicit acquisition processes, although significantly more evidence of learning difficulties were found for the former, indicating that explicit knowledge seems to be acquired more easily. However, SLA-research and successful classroom practices do not always align perfectly, as the curriculum indicates that a shift towards a more communicative approach is favoured and teachers should only include explicit instruction where necessary. It was particularly interesting that some grammatical items seem to be similar in learning difficulty for both processes, suggesting that a wider variety of teaching methods can be implemented into the ESL-classroom. Also, the subjective and objective difficulty of the grammatical items do not always overlap completely, which entails that successful acquisition, regardless of its nature, also depends on the teacher-learner relationship.
Table of Contents
1 Necessity of grammatical language awareness (GLA)
2 Language Awareness
2.1 Definition
2.2 Implicit and Explicit Instruction, Learning, Knowledge
3 General Literature Review
3.1 Prominent findings
3.2 Results & Limitations
4 Specific Literature Review: Implicit vs Explicit Knowledge benefits
4.1 Test battery
4.2 General results
4.3 Learning difficulty of grammatical structures
4.3.1 Implicit Knowledge
4.3.2 Explicit Knowledge
4.3.3 Methodology
4.3.4 Results
5 Discussion
5.1 Implications for the SL-classroom
5.2 Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This thesis examines the efficacy of implicit versus explicit language instruction and acquisition processes, aiming to determine whether specific grammatical features are better acquired as implicit or explicit knowledge. By synthesizing general literature with a specific review of The Marsden Project, the research investigates the relationship between these two types of knowledge and provides pedagogical implications for the ESL classroom.
- Comparison of implicit vs. explicit language acquisition and knowledge.
- Evaluation of learning difficulty regarding specific grammatical structures.
- Application of pedagogical models like Robinson's rule complexity to language teaching.
- Synthesis of research findings with Austrian secondary education curriculum guidelines.
- Investigation of the role of consciousness and awareness in second language learning.
Excerpt from the Book
4.3.1 Implicit Knowledge
Several authors (Ellis, 1996; Goldschneider & DeKeyser, 2000; Hulstijn & De Graaf 1994; Pienemann, 1998, all cited in Ellis et al., 2009) have proposed several criteria which determine the learning difficulty of grammatical items as implicit knowledge: (a) frequency of a grammatical item in the input, (b) saliency of the feature, (c) does the feature have a functional value (clear, distinct meaning), (d) regularity of the feature and (e) processability of the feature. We will now discuss the reasons for the listing of these criteria.
According to Ellis (1996, 2000, as cited in Ellis et al., 2009), learners can unconsciously count the amount of exposure regarding certain language elements, which, according to Ellis et al. (2009), results in a higher likelihood of acquisition for items that occur more frequently. However, there exist examples that contraindicate this view, such as English articles, which occur quite frequently but are not easily acquired (Gass & Mackey, 2002, as cited in Ellis et al., 2009).
Goldschneider & DeKeyser (2000, as cited in Ellis et al., 2009) concluded from their studies that some language features are more salient (easier to notice) than others. An example of this is the progressive form of the verb (-ing), as it appears to be more phonologically salient than, for example, the third person -s, as it is considered less phonologically salient. They also listed other factors such as "perpetual salience", "syntactic category" (free or bound morpheme) or "morphophonological regularity" that influence saliency.
Summary of Chapters
Necessity of grammatical language awareness (GLA): This chapter establishes the importance for future teachers to understand the debate between implicit and explicit teaching methods.
Language Awareness: This section defines key terminology and outlines the research questions concerning the efficacy of different acquisition processes.
General Literature Review: An overview of foundational hypotheses and prominent research regarding the differences between implicit and explicit language knowledge.
Specific Literature Review: Implicit vs Explicit Knowledge benefits: A deep dive into the methodology and results of The Marsden Project to analyze the acquisition of specific grammatical features.
Discussion: A critical reflection on the research findings and how they translate into practical implications for the ESL classroom in line with current curriculum guidelines.
Keywords
Second Language Acquisition, Implicit Knowledge, Explicit Knowledge, Grammatical Language Awareness, ESL Classroom, The Marsden Project, Language Instruction, Grammatical Difficulty, Input Hypothesis, Processability Theory, Noticing Hypothesis, Language Awareness, Pedagogic Rule Complexity, SLA Research, Communicative Approach.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research?
The work focuses on the debate between implicit and explicit language instruction and seeks to identify which method is more effective for acquiring specific grammatical features in a second language.
What are the central thematic areas?
The paper covers language awareness definitions, the distinction between implicit and explicit learning, the results of major SLA studies, and practical teaching applications.
What is the primary research goal?
The goal is to determine if learners can acquire grammatical features as implicit knowledge and to provide guidelines for ESL teachers on when to use explicit versus implicit instruction.
Which scientific methods were utilized?
The research utilizes a general literature review of the field combined with a specific case analysis of The Marsden Project by Ellis et al. (2009).
What does the main body cover?
It covers theoretical frameworks, a timeline of prominent findings in SLA, a detailed analysis of the Marsden Project test battery, and a discussion of learning difficulty criteria.
Which keywords characterize this paper?
Key terms include Second Language Acquisition, Implicit/Explicit Knowledge, Grammatical Language Awareness, and SLA Pedagogical Implications.
How does the curriculum influence the findings?
The paper contrasts research findings with the Austrian secondary school curriculum, which prioritizes communicative approaches and functional grammar over rigid explicit rules.
Why is the "continuum perspective" important?
The research suggests that grammar should not be viewed as a rigid dichotomy, but as a continuum, as some grammatical structures are better suited for implicit acquisition while others may benefit from explicit instruction.
What is the role of Robinson’s rule complexity model?
It serves as a tool for instructors to evaluate the clarity of grammatical explanations, helping them decide how much metalinguistic information is appropriate for learners.
- Quote paper
- Axel Kolbeinsson (Author), 2021, The necessity of grammatical language awareness (GLA), Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1191770
