scholarly journals Mastering Prepositions in English: Explicit versus Implicit Instruction

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafe S. Zaabalawi
Keyword(s):  
Implicit Instruction

Education Begins at Home

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Marschark ◽  
Harry G. Lang ◽  
John A. Albertini
Keyword(s):  
Personal Growth ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Deaf Child ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Medical Problems ◽  
Implicit Instruction ◽  
Early Access ◽  
Hearing Parents ◽  
Mother’S Voice

Parents, siblings, and others provide young children with a context in which development occurs and supports and promotes early learning. In this chapter, we consider the roles of various individuals and early interventions in social, language, and cognitive development before children enter school. Because most deaf children are born to nonsigning, hearing parents, communication in the home is given special consideration, particularly with regard to the kinds of information and experience that contribute to those domains. We also consider the importance of implicit instruction in relation to fostering educational readiness and the potential effects on long-term academic achievement and personal growth. Parents will encounter both opportunities and challenges in raising a deaf child, and research has demonstrated a variety of ways in which they can optimize their child’s development. Therefore, we devote some space to describing the field on which early development takes place. Most important, we will see the importance of deaf children having early access to language, social interaction, and experiential diversity. Because most cases of deafness are not hereditary, many deaf children will have congenital or early-onset hearing losses that are totally unexpected (and usually unrecognized for some time) by their parents. Some of those children will be considered at risk at birth because of the maternal, fetal, or neonatal medical problems that contributed to their hearing losses. Beyond the consequences of initial medical difficulties, factors related to prenatal or postnatal hearing loss may well influence the quantity or quality of interactions the infant has with others in the environment during the first few months. These earliest influences, and their effects, can have ever-widening consequences for development over the first months and years of life. Even before birth, sounds perceived from within the womb can influence the course of development. Early in the last trimester of pregnancy, a fetus will rotate and adopt a new position with the head against the mother’s pelvis. Most fetuses already have considerable responsiveness to sound at this point and can perceive the mother’s voice and heartbeat through bone conduction (Als et al., 1979).

scholarly journals Common Neural Basis for Phoneme Processing in Infants and Adults

2004 ◽  
Vol 16 (8) ◽  
pp. 1375-1387 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Dehaene-Lambertz ◽  
T. Gliga
Keyword(s):  
Language Processing ◽  
Neural Substrates ◽  
Event Related Potential ◽  
Neural Basis ◽  
Neural Structure ◽  
Implicit Instruction ◽  
Behavioral Studies ◽  
Phoneme Discrimination ◽  
Phoneme Perception ◽  
Degree Of Similarity

Investigating the degree of similarity between infants' and adults' representation of speech is critical to our understanding of infants' ability to acquire language. Phoneme perception plays a crucial role in language processing, and numerous behavioral studies have demonstrated similar capacities in infants and adults, but are these subserved by the same neural substrates or networks? In this article, we review event-related potential (ERP) results obtained in infants during phoneme discrimination tasks and compare them to results from the adult literature. The striking similarities observed both in behavior and ERPs between initial and mature stages suggest a continuity in processing and neural structure. We argue that infants have access at the beginning of life to phonemic representations, which are modified without training or implicit instruction, but by the statistical distributions of speech input in order to converge to the native phonemic categories.

scholarly journals Explicit and implicit instruction of refusal strategies: Does working memory capacity play a role?

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-188
Author(s):  
Mohammad Javad Ahmadian
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Explicit Instruction ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Implicit Instruction ◽  
Post Test ◽  
Implicit And Explicit ◽  
And Control ◽  
Refusal Strategies

This study investigated the differential effects of implicit and explicit instruction of refusal strategies in English and whether and how the impacts of instruction methods interact with learners’ working memory capacity (WMC). 78 learners of English were assigned to three groups (explicit, implicit, and control). Implicit instruction was operationalized through input enhancement and provision of recast. In the explicit instruction group, participants received description and exemplification of refusal strategies and were provided with explicit corrective feedback. Prior to the treatment, all participants took WMC test, Discourse Completion Test (DCT) and completed a pragmatics comprehension questionnaire (CQ). Results revealed that explicit instruction was more effective than implicit instruction for both production and comprehension of refusals and that both implicit and explicit groups maintained the improvement in the delayed post-test administered two months later. In addition, whilst WMC scores were positively and strongly correlated with gains in the immediate and delayed post-test for both DCT and CQ in the implicit group, no meaningful relationship was found for explicit and control groups. The unique feature of this research is demonstrating that explicit instruction of refusal strategies equalizes learning opportunities for all learners with differential levels of WMC.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF GUIDED INDUCTION VERSUS DEDUCTIVE INSTRUCTION ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMPLEX SPANISHGUSTARSTRUCTURES

2016 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 265-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luis Cerezo ◽  
Allison Caras ◽  
Ronald P. Leow
Keyword(s):  
Learning Outcomes ◽  
Higher Learning ◽  
Superior Performance ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Implicit Instruction ◽  
Oral Production ◽  
Induction Group ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Grammatical Structures ◽  
Deductive Instruction

Meta-analytic research suggests an edge of explicit over implicit instruction for the development of complex L2 grammatical structures, but the jury is still out as to which type of explicit instruction—deductiveorinductive, where rules are respectively provided or elicited—proves more effective. Avoiding this dichotomy, accumulating research shows superior results forguided induction, in which teachers help learners co-construct rules by directing their attention to relevant aspects in the input and asking guiding questions. However, no study has jointly investigated the effects of guided induction on both learning outcomes and processes, or whether guided induction can prove effective outside classroom settings where teacher mediation is not possible. In this study, which targeted the complex Spanishgustarstructures, 70 English-speaking learners of beginning Spanish received either guided induction via a videogame, deductive instruction in a traditional classroom setting, or no instruction. Learning outcomes were measured via one receptive and two controlled production tasks (oral and written) with old and new items. Results revealed that while both instruction groups improved across time, outperforming the control group, the guided induction group achieved higher learning outcomes on all productive posttests (except immediate oral production) and experienced greater retention. Additionally, the think-aloud protocols of the guided induction group revealed high levels of awareness of the L2 structure and a conspicuous activation of recently learned knowledge, which are posited to have contributed to this group’s superior performance. These findings thus illustrate, quantitatively and qualitatively, the potential of guided induction for the development of complex L2 grammar in online learning environments.

scholarly journals EFL Students’ Beliefs about How They Learn Grammar Best

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (10) ◽  
pp. 158
Author(s):  
Aysegul Daloglu
Keyword(s):  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Vital Role ◽  
Grammar Instruction ◽  
Focus On Form ◽  
Implicit Instruction ◽  
Instructional Process ◽  
Learner Beliefs ◽  
Method Of Instruction ◽  
Preparatory Year ◽  
Focus On Forms

Learner beliefs about how they learn a language best play a vital role in the instructional process and the role of grammar instruction has been a much-debated topic in the research and practice of EFL instruction. This study explores learner beliefs about how they best learn grammar focusing on four construct pairs: meaning-focused versus form-focused instruction, focus on form versus focus on forms, explicit versus implicit instruction, and inductive versus deductive grammar instruction. Data were collected through a survey from 927 preparatory year and undergraduate students at an English-medium university in an English as a foreign language (EFL) setting. Results showed that regardless of year of study, students showed a preference for having grammar included as part of their lessons and course books, and although focus on form was reported to be the least preferred method of instruction, when given a choice between implicit versus explicit grammar instruction, all groups preferred explicit instruction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document