Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address

1. Introduction

1.1. There are several differences between implicit and explicit learning knowledge, these differences were originated in cognitive psychology. Psychologists distinguish implicit and explicit learning in two ways:

1.1.1. Implicit learning proceeds without making demands on central attentional resources. The resulting knowledge is subsymbolic. Explicit learning typically involves memorizing a series of successive facts and thus makes heavy demands on working memory.

1.1.2. In the case of implicit learning, learners remain unaware of the learning that has taken place. In the case of explicit learning, learners are aware that they have learned something

1.2. Shanks: He concluded that there was no convincing evidence that implicit learning is functionally or neurally separate from explicit learning and that it was misguided to look for such dissociation.

1.3. Hazeltine and Ivry: mustered neuropsychological evidence to support the existence of distinct learning systems. This proposes a hybrid learning system consisting of a permanent procedural memory and a permanent declarative memory.

1.4. The importance of the implicit/explicit distinction for language learning was affirmed in the important collection of papers edited by Nick Ellis.

1.4.1. Some things we just come able to do,Other of our abilities depend on knowing how to do them.

1.4.2. Ellis drew on research in both cognitive psychology and language learning to spell out what he saw as the issues facing researchers.

1.5. Following Schmidt , implicit/ explicit learning (processes) and implicit/explicit knowledge (products) are ‘related but distinct concepts that need to be separated’.

2. Implicit/ Explicit L2 learning

2.1. Implicit language learning takes place without either intentionality or awareness.

2.2. Schmidt (1994, 2001) distinguished two types of awareness: awareness as noticing and metalinguistic awareness.

2.3. For explicit language learning is necessary a concious process and is generally intentional

2.4. There is no difference between implicit and explicit learning in simple rules but implicit learning is more efficient for complex rules.

2.5. Explicit learning provides the capacity to recognize and produce correct target forms. For this reason, explicit learning is easier to demostrate compared to implicit learning.

3. Implicit and Explicit L2 knowledge

3.1. ‘linguistic knowledge’

3.1.1. The first, drawing on the work of Chomsky, claims that linguistic knowledge consists of knowledge of the features of a specific language, which are derived from impoverished input. This view of language is innatist and mentalist in orientation, emphasising the contribution of a complex and biologically specified language module in the mind of the learner.

3.1.2. The second position, drawing on connectionist theories of language learning, as advanced by cognitive psychologists such as Rumelhart and McClelland (1986), views linguistic knowledge as comprised of an elaborate network of nodes and internode connections of varying strengths that dictate the ease with which specific sequences or ‘rules’ can be accessed.

3.1.3. Both the innatist and connectionist accounts of L2 learning view linguistic competence as consisting primarily of implicit L2 knowledge and see the goal of theory as explaining how this implicit knowledge is acquired.

3.2. - Tacit and intuitive vs. conscious

3.2.1. Implicit knowledge is taict and intuitive

3.2.2. Explicit knowledge is conscious

3.2.3. A learner may know intuitively that there is something ungrammatical and may even be able to identify the part of the sentence where the error occurs, but may have no conscious awareness of the rule that is being broken.

3.3. Procedural vs. declarative

3.3.1. - Implicit knowledge is ‘procedural’. Explicit knowledge consists of facts about the L2. This is no different from encyclopedic knowledge of any other kind -L2 learners’ procedural rules may or may not be target-like while their declarative rules are often imprecise and inaccurate The condition-action rules that learners construct as part of their implicit knowledge may or may not conform to the native speaker’ rules. SLA research has shown that learners typically manifest developmental sequences when they acquire implicit knowledge. In the case of explicit knowledge, learners’ knowledge is often fuzzy. Sorace (1985) showed that much of learners’ explicit knowledge is imprecise, but also that it becomes better defined as proficiency increases.

3.4. - Automatic processing vs. controlled processing

3.4.1. The ‘procedures’ that comprise implicit knowledge can be easily and rapidly accessed in unplanned language use.

3.4.2. In contrast, explicit knowledge exists as declarative facts that can only be accessed through the application of attentional processes.

3.5. -Default L2 production relies on implicit knowledge, but difficulty in performing a language task may result in the learner attempting to exploit explicit knowledge.

3.5.1. To borrow terms from sociocultural theory: Implicit knowledge can be viewed as knowledge that has been fully internalized by the learner. In contrast, explicit knowledge can be viewed as a ‘tool’ that learners use to mediate performance and achieve self-control in linguistically demanding situations. Explicit knowledge manifests itself.

3.6. - Evident in learners’ verbal behavior vs. verbalizable.

3.6.1. Implicit knowledge cannot be described as it exists in the form of statistically weighted connections between memory nodes, and its regularities are only manifest in actual language use.

3.6.2. Explicit knowledge exists as declarative facts that can be ‘stated’. It is important to recognize, however, that verbalizing a rule or feature need not entail the use of metalanguage.

3.7. -There are limits on most learners’ ability to acquire implicit knowledge whereas most explicit knowledge is learnable

3.7.1. Implicit knowledge is clearly learnable, but there would appear to be age constraints on the ability of learners to fully learn an L2 implicitly given that very few learners achieve native speaker proficiency. There are incremental deficits in our ability to learn implicit knowledge as we age

3.7.2. ‘explicit knowledge can be learned at any age’, and it is not perhaps until old age that learning deficits become apparent.

3.8. -The learner’s L2 implicit and explicit knowledge systems are distinct

3.8.1. An issue of considerable importance (and also controversy) is the extent to which a learner’s L2 implicit and L2 explicit systems are distinct. Explicit memory is stored diffusely over large areas of the tertiary cortex and involves the limbic system; implicit memory is ‘linked to the cortical processors through which it was acquired’ and does not involve the limbic system.

3.9. -L2 performance utilizes a combination of implicit and explicit knowledge

3.9.1. The problem in determining whether implicit and explicit knowledge stores are separate or linked rests in part, at least, on the problem of determining precisely how learners draw on their linguistic knowledge when performing different language tasks.

3.9.2. Bialystok (1982) pointed out, language use typically involves learners drawing on both systems to construct messages. Furthermore, it is possible that learners will have developed both implicit and explicit knowledge of the same linguistic feature.

3.9.3. The point at issue now is that irrespective of whether the two systems are psychologically and neurologically distinct, they will never be entirely distinct in performance.

4. Implicit and Explicit Instruction

4.1. The term ‘instruction’ implies an attempt to intervene in interlanguage development.

4.2. It is characterized language instruction in terms of ‘indirect’ and ‘direct’ intervention (Ellis, 2005)

4.2.1. Indirect intervention aims ‘to create conditions where learners can learn experientially through learning how to communicate in the L2 .It is best realized through a task-based syllabus

4.2.2. Instruction as direct intervention involves the pre-emptive specification of what it is that the learners are supposed to learn and, typically, draws on a structural syllabus.

4.3. Implicit and explicit instruction do not correlate exactly with this basic distinction, but can be mapped onto it.

4.3.1. Implicit instruction is directed at enabling learners to infer rules without awareness, this type involves creating a enriched learning evironment.

4.3.2. Explicit instruction involves a rule being thought during the whole process of learning. In this instruction learners are encouraged to develop a metalinguistic awareness of the rule. There are two ways of doing this: Deductively or inductively.

4.3.3. Explicit instruction can also be reactive or proactive, the former occurs when the teachers provide corrective feedback on the learner's errors, the later occurs when the teacher offers a explanation prior to any practise activity.

4.3.4. Many studies that researched the effectiveness of implicit and explicit instructions relied on methods that favored the explicit one. Norris and Ortega distinguished four types of measure 1.Metalinguistic judgement 2.Selected response 3. Constrained constructed response 4. Free constructed response

5. The interface issue

5.1. The distinction that is relevant as the interface issue concerns the extent to which implicit knowledge interfaces with explicit knowledge. The interface issue addresses a number of questions that have very different answers to the interface question have been offered

5.1.1. The noninterface position Research shows that implicit and explicit knowledge involve different acquisitional mechanisms that are stored in different parts of the brain and are accessed for performance, by means of different processes. In its pure form, this position rejects both the possibility of explicit knowledge transforming directly into implicit knowledge and the possibility of implicit knowledge becoming explicit.

5.1.2. The strong interface position Claims that not only can explicit knowledge be derived from implicit knowledge but that explicit knowledge can be converted into implicit knowledge through practice.

5.1.3. The weak interface position Exists in three versions, all of which acknowledge the possibility of explicit knowledge becoming implicit, but posit some limitation on when or how this can take place. One version posits that explicit knowledge can convert into implicit knowledge through practice, but only if the learner is developmentally ready to acquire the linguistic form. The second version sees explicit knowledge as contributing indirectly to the acquisition of implicit knowledge by promoting some of the processes believed to be responsible. According to the third version, learners can use their explicit knowledge to produce output that then serves as ‘auto-input’ to their implicit learning mechanisms (Schmidt & Frota, 1986; Sharwood Smith, 1981). Neurolinguistic studies lend some support to the interface positions.