A Comparison of Implicit and Explicit Teaching in Terms of Grammar and Writing Skills of Intermediate Learners

Altun, Lokman; Dinçer, Nazmi

doi:10.14686/buefad.601184

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Along the same line is J.C. Richards and R. Schmidt who argue that implicit instruction is a non-conscious process of learning through which students are not aware of what is being taught and learned at the same time [25]. Teachers should just focus attention on significant parts of a target form because students should be expert in terms of the target form [17].…”

Section: Literature Review Explicit Vs Implicit Instructionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…First, no studies have explored academic writing skill development in engineering students predominantly involving humanities students in the experiments. Second, relatively few studies have examined stancetaking developmental trends mainly focusing on grammar or vocabulary development [15][16][17] or on the production of speech acts such as refusals [16] and requests [11]. Third, although implicit and explicit types of instruction on a limited set of stance features such as hedges or self-mentions have been frequently contrasted in the EAP literature [18; 19], this has rarely been done in the context of all stancetaking features as presented by K. Hyland [20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Comparison of Explicit and Implicit Approaches to EAP Teaching to Postgraduate Students

Boginskaya

2024

Vysš. obraz. Ross. (Print)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study aims to explore the role of explicit and implicit approaches in developing pragmatic competence in postgraduate students as part of the Foreign Language course. 32 students were divided into two groups depending on the type of teaching approach for six weeks of instruction. Research proposals written by each group after the interventions were examined with the aim of comparing the employment of pragmatic features such as stance-taking resources and their frequencies. In order to investigate the effects of stance-taking instruction, this study adopted a combination of quantitative and interpretative analysis methods. The results revealed significant differences in the use of stance resources by the postgraduate students exposed to explicit vs implicit instruction. In terms of compliance with the academic writing norms, the explicit instruction was found to be more effective than the implicit one. The analysis found that while the explicit group tended to mitigate their claims and hide authorial presence, the students exposed to the implicit instruction expressed stronger commitments to propositional content and showed writer visibility in the text, which considers to be inappropriate in English-language academic writing. The findings point to important considerations for EAP teaching and future research into academic discourse and contribute to previous studies of the benefits of instruction in the development of pragmatic competence. The results may be employed by curriculum designers to create materials for L2 writers and EAP instructors in their teaching practice.

show abstract

Section: Literature Review Explicit Vs Implicit Instructionmentioning

confidence: 98%