The long-term effect of explicit instruction on learners’ knowledge on English articles

Abstract

This study examines the role of explicit instruction in article semantics to L2 learners of English. Two types of generic sentences, expressed by different articles, were tested over time. An instruction group ( n = 21), a control group ( n = 16) and a native English speaker control group ( n = 9) participated in the study. The instruction group received nine 60-minute lessons across 9 weeks. A pre-test was administered to both groups before instruction began and four post-tests were given to both groups. The results from delayed post-tests show that the instruction group improved, but after one year little knowledge was retained. The findings suggest that explicit knowledge of articles is unlikely to be retained unless ongoing instruction is achieved.

The effects of input enhancement and explicit instruction on developing Iranian lower-intermediate EFL learners’ explicit knowledge of passive voice

“…On the other hand, approaches like CLT and FonF generally suggest that second/foreign language instruction should be implicit to some extent. Another consideration is about the durability of instruction, the litrature revealed that explicit instruction resulted in positive effects only in the short term, while implicit instruction did not (Fordyce, 2013;Tode, 2007;Umeda et al, 2017). Also, few studies provided evidence to support the facilitative effect of input enhancement.…”

Grammatical meaning and the second language classroom: Introduction

“…However, if it turns out that unconscious L2 knowledge is, in fact, impervious to instruction-along the lines that Umeda et al (2017) conclude-then it would be all the more crucial that instruction materials are as accurate as possible in terms of their linguistic descriptions. This is because there is nothing to stop a learner from making use of their explicit, metalinguistic knowledge of grammar rules during communication in their L2.…”

“…Both of these can be exemplified in English: a big cat versus a cat that is big. The two following studies by Umeda et al (2017) and Lopez (2017) both test teaching interventions that focus on aspects of determiners in English, but with less promising findings than Hirakawa et al Umeda et al start with a discussion of the debate about whether primary linguistic data in the form of comprehensible input that language learners are exposed to is sufficient for acquisition of any grammatical property. Scholars have acknowledged that there may be some properties for which such naturalistic exposure could be insufficient because it is very rare.…”

“…The papers in this volume can be divided into two sets: those that report on a teaching intervention study that aims to incorporate linguistic description from generative linguistic research into grammar instruction (Hirakawa et al, 2018;Lopez, 2017;Umeda et al, 2017) and those that combine experimental L2 acquisition work with pedagogically oriented research, including a survey of the presentation of linguistic properties in textbooks (Gil et al, 2017), a survey of language teacher views and investigation of classroom input (Leal & Slabakova, 2017), and exploration of materials development (Shimanskaya & Slabakova, 2017).…”

“…The properties under investigation in the different papers all relate to elements of language that typically receive at least some attention in the language classroom: articles (Lopez, 2017;Umeda, Snape, Wiltshier & Yusa, 2017), adjectives (Hirakawa, Shibuya & Endo, 2018), and negation (Gil, Marsden & Whong, 2017) in English, and clitic pronouns in Spanish (Leal & Slabakova, 2017) and French (Shimanskaya & Slabakova, 2017). The formal linguistic properties of these elements have all been investigated within the generative linguistic paradigm.…”