The Effect of Explicit Instruction on Implicit and Explicit Linguistic Knowledge in Kindergartners

Abstract

Research consistently shows that adults engaged in tutored acquisition benefit from explicit instruction in several linguistic domains. For preschool children, it is often assumed that such explicit instruction does not make a difference. In the present study, we investigated whether explicit instruction affected young learners in acquiring a morpho-syntactic element. A total of 103 Dutch-speaking kindergartners (M = 5;7) received training in a miniature language to learn a meaningful agreement marker. Results from a picture matching task, during which eye movements were recorded, provided no evidence that explicit instruction led to higher accuracy rates, but suggest that it did lead to earlier predictive eye movements. These data seem incompatible with the idea that explicit instruction does not make a difference when kindergartners learn a grammatical element, and tentatively suggest that explicit instruction has a different effect on explicit knowledge than on implicit knowledge in this age group.

The Importance of Implicit Knowledge in Chemistry Teaching and Learning

“…The three conventional interface states are commonly referred to as no interface, weak interface, and strong interface. As per the no-interface perspective proposed by Spit, Andringa, Rispens, and Aboh [26], there exists a complete segregation between explicit and implicit knowledge, with no possibility of any mutual influence or interaction between the two. This perspective, which can be considered a less prevalent viewpoint in contemporary research, is frequently associated with a generative nativist framework utilized in the acquisition of a second language.…”

Robustness of the cognitive gains in 7‐month‐old bilingual infants: A close multi‐center replication of Kovács and Mehler (2009)

“…Simplifying looking behavior during the test trials to either anticipatory (1) or non‐anticipatory (0) looks, as in our previous analysis, does not do justice to the wealth of gaze behavior data that is obtained during these trials. In order to investigate looking behavior over time during the switch task, we carried out several cluster‐based permutation analyses (see Dink & Ferguson, 2015; Maris & Oostenveld, 2007; Spit et al., 2022, for examples) using the eyetrackingR package (Dink & Ferguson, 2015). These analyses enabled us to investigate the development of the proportion of looks towards the target picture over trials during the course of the anticipation time window.…”

Improving Housing Resilience through Disaster Knowledge Management (DKM) Assessment

“…Explicit knowledge refers to the knowledge that persons possess and can deliberately articulate using language. In contrast, implicit knowledge pertains to intuitive knowledge accessed via automatic processing (Roehr-Brackin, 2022;Spit et al, 2022). This knowledge has the potential to be applied in practical contexts, such as performance, but it remains inaccessible to conscious awareness or effective communication (Spit et al, 2022).…”

“…In contrast, implicit knowledge pertains to intuitive knowledge accessed via automatic processing (Roehr-Brackin, 2022;Spit et al, 2022). This knowledge has the potential to be applied in practical contexts, such as performance, but it remains inaccessible to conscious awareness or effective communication (Spit et al, 2022). Incorporating implicit understanding is of utmost importance in this study, as it comprises the expertise in seismic construction transmitted unconsciously across generations (Ketsap et al, 2019).…”