Instruction-English-Language-Essay - PHP: Wang, D. (2000) - Vocabulary Acquisition: Implicit Learning and Explicit Teaching
Instruction-English-Language-Essay - PHP: Wang, D. (2000) - Vocabulary Acquisition: Implicit Learning and Explicit Teaching
Instruction-English-Language-Essay - PHP: Wang, D. (2000) - Vocabulary Acquisition: Implicit Learning and Explicit Teaching
com/essays/english-language/effect-of-explicit-and-implicit-vocabulary-
instruction-english-language-essay.php
Implicit vocabulary teaching and learning method involves indirect, or incidental whereas
the explicit method involves direct, or intentional.
In vocabulary acquisition studies, one key research direction is to explore the points at
which implicit vocabulary learning is more efficient than explicit vocabulary learning, to ask
what are the most effective strategies of implicit learning, and to consider the implications of
research results for classroom vocabulary teaching(Carter and Nunan, 2002).
https://repository.nie.edu.sg/bitstream/10497/3825/3/REACT-2000-2-15.pdf
The extreme implicit vocabulary learning hypothesis holds that the meaning of a new acquisition takes
place as a result of exposure to comprehensible input. The amount of reading positively correlates with
the lexical size of the readers. But it is very important to note that all but several of the studies Krashen
(1989) reviews involve native speakers rather than second language learners. In this sense, "research
that positively supports Krashen j. claims as regards second language vocabulary acquisition is still very
limited" (Coady, 1997, p. 226).
Historically, our perspective on learning vocabulary has been greatly influenced by dominant teaching
methods. The pendulum has swung from direct teaching of vocabulary under the sway of the grammar
translation method to implicit acquisition under the influence of top-down, naturalistic, and
communicative approaches, and now, laudably, back to the middle: implicit and explicit learning
(Sokmen, 1997).
Implicit learning takes place in all areas of life and it is therefore reasonable to assume that it takes place
in the realm of vocabulary learning as well (Gass, 1999). However, it is hard to thoroughly subscribe to
the extreme implicit vocabulary learning hypothesis. Since input can be made salient either by the
teacher, materials, books, and so forth, or by the students themselves, the attention focus of learners
can be shifted both externally and internally.Since input can be made salient either by the teacher,
materials, books, and so forth, or by the students themselves, the attention focus of learners can be
shifted both externally and internally. In this vein, though many authors take implicit learning as
something that is learnt without the object of that learning being the specific focus of attention in a
classroom context, the pedagogically induced attention may or may not fit in with learner attention
The arguments for not focussing solely on implicit learning also come from a number of potential
problems associated with inferring words from context. Acquiring vocabulary mainly through guessing
words in context is likely to be a very slow errorprone process. Students, especially those with low-level
proficiency, are often frustrated with this approach and it is difficult to undo the possible damage done
by incorrect guessing (Sokmen, 1997)
Language learners acquire the more procedural knowledge aspect of implicit learning by repeated
exposure and practice. Simple attention suffices for implicit learning mechanisms to induce regularities
in the input environment. Thus, implicit learning is a process, occurring naturally, simply, and without
much conscious operation.
To the extent that vocabulary learning is an implicit skill acquisition, it is also an explicit knowledge
acquisition process (Ellis, 1994). The tunings of the implicit learning can be guided and governed by
explicit learning and explicit learning can be consolidated and reinforced by implicit learning. Thus,
implicit learning and explicit learning are, as it were, two sides of a coin in vocabulary acquisition.
By the 1960s critics began to observe that these methods produce fluent but flawed
speakers (e.g.
"Audiolingual methods have been teaching speech but not language”, Donaldson,
1971, p. 123) and explicit instruction of grammatical rules was reintroduced in the
Cognitive Code Method, 'a modified, up-to-date translation theory' (Carroll, 1966, p.
102), which held that perception and awareness of L2 rules precede their use. In
the 1970s and 80s the pendulum swung back to Naturalistic methods (Krashen,
1982, 1985). Krashen’s underlying theory, the Input Hypothesis, is a non-interface
position in that it posits that adults can subconsciously acquire languages and
they can consciously learn about language. But in this view learning cannot be
converted into acquisition; subconscious
acquisition dominates in L2 performance, and conscious learning is used only as a
Monitor, i.e. as an editor to correct output after it has been initiated by the
acquired system. Thus in Krashen's Monitor theory implicit acquisition of L2 is the
essential aim of instructional programmes. Currently the pendulum is yet again in
swing: in the light of analyses of the disappointing abilities of graduates from
'grammar-free' foreign language (FL) programmes (Gomes da Torre, 1985) there
are new ca1ls for a return to explicit methods (Kingman + Cox Reports for English,
1988, 1989; James, 1986).
Such swings in educational practice make it clear that there is no simple
answer to the question of whether language acquisition reflects conscious or
unconscious processes. There are two major causes of this continuing contention.
The first is the 'slipperiness' of the term 'consciousness' both in its constitutive
definitions and in their operationalisations (McLaughlin, 1990; Schmidt, this
volume). The second is that 'language learning' is equally poorly defined, mainly
because of its numerous facets. Researchers really need to be clear in what they
are talking about with regard both consciousness and language, hence this symposium
whose aim is a theoretical overhaul of our concepts in effort after clarity and
standardisation.
''language is subconsciously acquired - while you are acquiring, you don't know you are
acquiring [implicit learning] your conscious focus is on the message, not form
[learning without attention]. Thus, the acquisition process is identical to what had
been termed 'incidental learning.' [incidental learning] Also acquired knowledge is
represented subconsciously in the brain - it is what Chomsky has termed 'tacit
knowledge'. [intuitive knowledge & implicit memory]" (Krashen, 1989, p. 440)
L2 teaching approaches are heavily rule-based and hold that explicit knowledge is a necessary, or at any
rate a desirable, precursor of implicit knowledge
According to Ellis’ (1994) terminology, implicit learning is typically defined as acquisition of knowledge by a
process which takes place naturally, simply and without conscious operation
In the field of vocabulary acquisition, incidental learning is largely defined as the learning
of vocabulary as a by-product of any activity not explicitly geared towards vocabulary learning
(Rieder, 2003).
https://www.u-bunkyo.ac.jp/center/library/image/fsell2002_89-96.pdf