Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 4

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  explicit and implicit knowledge
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
One important controversy connected with the effectiveness of grammar teaching seems to have been resolved as there is ample empirical evidence testifying to the positive effect of form-focused instruction on second language acquisition (Nassaji & Fotos, 2004; Norris & Ortega, 2000; Spada, 1997, 2010). Nevertheless, there are still a number of problems open to debate and awaiting concrete solutions, such as how to establish connections between form and meaning and find the best way to teach grammar for implicit knowledge, which, in the opinion of most SLA researchers (Ellis, 2006a, p. 95) and according to numerous theoretical positions, is a key driver of linguistic competence. One of the options available to language educators is to employ focused communication tasks, which “are designed to elicit production of a specific target feature in the context of performing a communicative task” (Ellis, 2001, p. 21). The aim of the study reported in this article was to explore the effect of focused communication tasks on the instructed acquisition of English past counterfactual conditionals when compared with contextualized practice activities. The results of two types of intervention were measured employing a number of data collection instruments with a view to tapping both the explicit and implicit knowledge of the participants of the study. Both types of instructional treatment were equally effective in helping learners develop the explicit knowledge of past unreal conditionals, but when it comes to the implicit knowledge of the aforementioned structure, the group instructed by means of focused communication tasks outperformed the other experimental group and the control group, as evidenced by the results obtained from the individually elicited imitation test and the focused communication task performed in pairs.
EN
One important controversy connected with the effectiveness of grammar teaching seems to have been resolved as there is ample empirical evidence testifying to the positive effect of form-focused instruction on second language acquisition (Nassaji & Fotos, 2004; Norris & Ortega, 2000; Spada, 1997, 2010). Nevertheless, there are still a number of problems open to debate and awaiting concrete solutions, such as how to establish connections between form and meaning and find the best way to teach grammar for implicit knowledge, which, in the opinion of most SLA researchers (Ellis, 2006a, p. 95) and according to numerous theoretical positions, is a key driver of linguistic competence. One of the options available to language educators is to employ focused communication tasks, which “are designed to elicit production of a specific target feature in the context of performing a communicative task” (Ellis, 2001, p. 21). The aim of the study reported in this article was to explore the effect of focused communication tasks on the instructed acquisition of English past counterfactual conditionals when compared with contextualized practice activities. The results of two types of intervention were measured employing a number of data collection instruments with a view to tapping both the explicit and implicit knowledge of the participants of the study. Both types of instructional treatment were equally effective in helping learners develop the explicit knowledge of past unreal conditionals, but when it comes to the implicit knowledge of the aforementioned structure, the group instructed by means of focused communication tasks outperformed the other experimental group and the control group, as evidenced by the results obtained from the individually elicited imitation test and the focused communication task performed in pairs.
3
89%
Neofilolog
|
2010
|
issue 35
9-22
PL
A key issue in research projects exploring the effectiveness of foreign language learning and teaching is precise measurement of learners’ knowledge of the targeted structure before and after the pedagogic intervention with an eye to determining the value of specific instructional options. Such measurement, however, poses a considerable challenge because traditional tests focusing on grammar or lexis only provide information about explicit, declarative knowledge, which is conscious and can primarily be applied in situations in which learners have sufficient time to plan their responses. For this reason, it is also necessary to measure implicit, procedural knowledge which is subconscious and automatic, thus enabling successful participation in spontaneous communication where limited attentional resources have to be employed in understanding and conveying messages in real time. The aim of this paper is to characterize the two types of linguistic knowledge, present the tools that can be employed in their measurement, and demonstrate how instruments of this kind can be successfully utilized in empirical investigations aiming to verify the effectiveness of techniques and procedures in teaching grammar.
Neofilolog
|
2018
|
issue 50/2
197-214
EN
Although there is a considerable body of research aiming to determine the effectiveness of different techniques and procedures in promoting the mastery of grammar structures in the target language, little is still known about how this effectiveness is mediated by individual difference (ID) variables, which, in turn, may determine learner engagement and translate into learning outcomes (Ellis, 2010; Pawlak, 2014, 2017b). For this reason, it is necessary to undertake research that would explore the link between grammar knowledge and ID factors. This is the rationale behind the research project funded by the Polish National Science Center outlined in the present paper. The project involves over 200 English philology and aims to establish the mediating effects of working memory, willingness to communicate, motivation, grammar learning strategies, and beliefs about grammar instruction with respect to the mastery of different types of English passive voice (i.e., different aspects and tenses), taking into account both explicit and implicit knowledge of this grammatical feature.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.