Explicit grammar teaching outperforms implicit teaching; one review found the advantage only for complex rules, but a meta-analysis found it for simple rules too¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 2 studies · 1 quant-synthesis r?, 1 review r2 · q2–q3 · n=41 studies
Currency · newest study 2010 · 1 of 2 entries checked against their sources (automated) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Explicit teaching of grammar resulted in better learner performance particularly with complex rules, while no difference was found for simple rules. → Raafat Gabriel 2009 q3 i? Contrary to the review's simple-rule null, a meta-analysis of 41 studies found larger effect sizes for explicit than implicit instruction for simple as well as complex English grammatical features; the abstract prints no effect size. → Spada & Tomita 2010

Evidence¶

Raafat Gabriel 2009¶

Raafat Gabriel. (2009). The Efficacy of Explicit Grammar Instruction and its Impact on L2 Rule-Learning: A literature review. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED509345

q2 · i? · review · r2

The review reports Andrews (2007), a quantitative study of 70 teenage ESL learners in intact classes at three proficiency levels, taught a simple rule (subject-verb agreement) and a complex rule (relative clauses) via explicit or implicit treatments with pre-, post- and delayed post-tests. The review states "explicit teaching of grammar resulted in better learners performance particularly with complex rules".

"the method of teaching did make a difference indicating that explicit teaching of grammar resulted in better learners performance particularly with complex rules"

Spada & Tomita 2010¶

Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263–308. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.x

q3 · meta-analysis (abstract only) · i? · n=41 studies · quant-synthesis · r?

Meta-analysis of 41 studies of explicit and implicit instruction on simple and complex grammatical features in English, with features classed by the number of criteria applied to arrive at the correct form (Hulstijn & de Graaff, 1994) and treatments classed following Norris and Ortega (2000). It found larger effect sizes for explicit over implicit instruction for both simple and complex features, which contradicts the review's finding of no difference for simple rules. Only the abstract was read: it prints no effect sizes, so whether the explicit advantage is smaller for simple features is not established here.

"The results indicate larger effect sizes for explicit over implicit instruction for simple and complex features."

Discussion¶

Spada and Tomita (2010), a meta-analysis of 41 studies, found larger effects for explicit than implicit instruction for simple as well as complex English grammatical features, which contradicts the earlier title's "equals implicit teaching for simple rules". That rested on one primary study (Andrews, 2007) reported second-hand, so the title now states both findings and gives the meta-analysis its weight.

Learner Variables¶

• Syntax — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Review synthesis: explicit teaching matters, but its advantage over other approaches varies by context and structure — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• High-explicitness rule-oriented instruction outperforms implicit instruction or no instruction — related
• Explicit teaching is more effective for EFL copular be learning but its effect is not durable — related
• Majorities of students believed inductive instruction more effective for simple structures and, conversely, for difficult structures — related
• ESL learners rate deductive and inductive consciousness-raising tasks equally effective, regardless of proficiency — related
• All student groups preferred explicit over implicit grammar instruction — related
• Prep School and undergraduate students differed significantly on overall beliefs, MFI-FFI and FonF-FonFs, but not on implicit-explicit or inductive-deductive preferences — related
• Applying skill theory to grammar conflates constructs: pedagogical rules are not what exists in learners' mental representation — related
• Learners resolve grammar-related noticing with intuition, reasoning, rephrasing and explicit rules rather than external resources — related
• Explicit L2 grammar instruction leads to larger learning effects than implicit instruction, as reported in the reviewed synthesis literature — related
• Explicit teaching of grammar rules enhances their learning, and rules are learned faster and better when repeated in communicative tasks — related
• Implicit learners do not outperform other learners on complex second language rules — reports the opposite
• Instructed learners outperform all other condition groups in learning simple second language rules — reports the opposite
• No differential effect of explicit instruction depending on the variable complexity — reports the opposite
• Peer instruction is less effective than explicit teacher creativity teaching for lower-level students — related
• Attention to form via structural analysis or via highlighting structures in context promotes interlanguage grammar acquisition, but only highlighting in context comes with comprehension of input — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• All student groups preferred deductive over inductive grammar instruction — related
• No differential effect of explicit instruction depending on the variable morphology/syntax — reports the opposite
• The usefulness of induction and errorful learning varies with the type of terminal task being taught — related
• FFI involving extensive instruction directed at simple structures was more likely to succeed in developing implicit knowledge — related
• Deductive reasoning develops in stages: explicit inference around ages 5-6, modus tollens around 9-10, and explicit metalogic in adolescence — related
• Explicit strategy instruction, unlike implicit strategy instruction, is associated with a gain in student performance — related