چکیده:
Many studies have examined the effect of different approaches to teaching
grammar including explicit and implicit instruction. However, research in
this area is limited in a number of respects. One such limitation pertains to
the issue of construct validity of the measures, i.e. the knowledge developed
through implicit instruction has been measured through instruments which
favor the recipients of explicit instruction. The present study expands on the
previous studies by exploring the effectiveness of explicit and implicit
instructions through administering a timed GJT and an untimed GJT. Data
were collected from three different groups: (a) the explicit group was
presented with rules of verb complementation, (b) the implicit group
received visually enhanced texts, and (c) the control group received no
instruction of the target feature. The results of the mixed between-within
subjects ANOVA test revealed that the learners in explicit group
outperformed the learners in implicit and control groups in post-tests and
delayed post-tests even in the case of the implicit measure. Furthermore, the
results indicated the more durable effects of explicit instruction compared
with implicit instruction. Taken together, the study provided evidence for the
efficiency of explicit teaching compared to implicit teaching in the context of
L2 development.
خلاصه ماشینی:
"Following this line of research, other studies have further confirmed these results even with other languages (Bowles, 2011; Ellis & Loewen, 2007; Ellis, Loewen, Edler, Erlam, Philp, & Reinders, 2009, Godfroid, Loewen, Jung, Park, Gass, & Ellis, 2015; Zhang, 2015).
Post-hoc analysis of the ungrammatical sentences in the untimed GJT revealed a significant increase of scores only for explicit group from pre-test to post- and delayed post-tests; however, the implicit group did not improve any more than the control group.
This result aligns with the conclusions of the previous studies that textual enhancement, as an implicit approach, has no effect on intake, acquisition, or comprehension (Alanen, 1995; Izumi, 2003; Leow, Egi, Nuevo, & Tsai, 2003; Radwan, 2005; Wong, 2003).
This observation is consistent with Reinders and Ellis’ (2009) results that overall input enhancement and enriched input condition had no effect on the development of learners’ implicit and explicit knowledge as measured by timed and untimed GJTs, respectively.
That participants in the implicit group of this study could not make appropriate grammaticality judgments even in the case of timed GJT indicates that textual enhancement was not effective enough to induce changes in the participants’ interlanguage by forming implicit knowledge.
Based on the same line of argument, we can claim while the present study showed little effect of II, it does not rule out the possibility that longer instructional treatments might produce different results given that short-time instruction is inherently biased against implicit learning (Dekeyser, 2009) and this type of learning is a cumulative process."