Language acquisition theory and its implications in terms of implicit or explicit language teaching methods have been an essential issue in language studies. Clear teaching focuses on an instructive approach of guided learning through rules, while implicit teaching encompasses the natural, unconscious learning experience. It is relevant in understanding the debate surrounding it in language learning settings. Most of how children learn their first language is done when they take cues from their environment without necessarily being taught formally. The same applies to immersion or exposure strategies to the second language in natural situations, which are effective in the learning process to support the usefulness of unconscious methods.
On the contrary, most of the educational establishments provide explicit grammar teaching. Teaching the rules and structuring words is done directly. Even though children can study the language without much instruction, this is manifested by their ability to learn it. Naturally, most schools use the explicit approach, which is meant to create a systematic understanding of the grammar rules as well as the intricacies of the language. A balanced approach that combines implicit and explicit teaching styles is the best way to meaningful language instruction. Subsection three appreciates that people’s language instincts are good while at the same time taking into account the fact that people can understand complex linguistics and grammar through structured instructions. It implies that we have to develop an appropriate language teaching strategy combining the two procedures’ positive features to facilitate effective foreign language acquisition and proficiency development.
Background (and terminology)
Implicit teaching is a term used to denote how learners pick up foreign languages unconsciously without being directly instructed about formal rules. Learners absorb the patterns unconsciously due to interacting with people who speak the same language daily (Jegerski, 2020 318). The method comprises immersing the learners into the language setting where language competencies are acquired just like children do when learning their first language.
It is important to note that in learning their first language, children rely on implicit means. In this manner, they are straightforward since they spend their time around the language of their families, friends, and society. Children learn the structure and words of a speech by listening to people talk, reading stories, and having ordinary daily discussions (Araki, 2020: 2). They are endowed with the instinct of discrimination. They can mimic languages, which helps them in their first language learning. It happens instinctively during the crucial period for language acquisition that allows children to grasp and use a natural and native language without the need for standard grammar tuition.
It raises a debate about using teaching techniques in second language learning. Some people advocate for direct instruction while using various techniques to promote explicit awareness of grammar rules for students to learn a new language better. According to the dominant view, efficient second language acquisition requires direct instruction of grammar rules, vocabulary, and language structures. Advocators of explicit teaching argue that giving learners a clear perspective on grammar and vocabulary helps quicken foreign language comprehension, especially for complex terms that cannot quickly be learned through implicit exposure (Yaghoubi & Aghagolzadeh, 2022: 2).
Further, the debate includes applying each method in different learning environments. Explicit teaching is common in most schools and universities, where they systematically educate people on the rules governing language (Frøisland et al., 2023). The curriculum is designed to provide grammar drills, vocabulary exercises, and structured lessons to develop language skills. Nevertheless, advocates of such methods favor implicit approaches that employ exposure and practice to enhance proficiency in more casual situations and intensive language programs.
The essay is generally about balancing implicit and explicit second language learning approaches. Implicit learning resembles spontaneous learning with language, whereas explicit teaching offers systematical comprehension of language laws. One of the challenges is to define the best ways, or even to combine the ways, to develop an extensive experience of learning a foreign language by the people being taught.
Arguments for Implicit Teaching
Several research studies confirm that children learn their native languages despite no grammar lessons. Linguists such as Noam Chomsky have noted that children have an instinct for learning language. According to Chomsky’s Universal Grammar theory, children are naturally inclined towards language, making it possible to pick up languages automatically and without any teaching (Araki, 2020: 1). Observation of child language development suggests their ability to create and understand sentences even complex ones, proving the natural knowledge about grammatical rules without learning it explicitly (Araki, 2020: 1). For example, children learn from their linguistic environment how to organize linguistic elements into meaningful sentences without being aware that they are learning because of implicit learning.
Many studies attest to the benefits of implicit learning on second language acquisition. Several studies show that implicit learning techniques that focus on continuous and extensive exposure to the language help in second language acquisition. Research done by experts in language acquisition, like Stephen Krashen, underscores the necessity of comprehensible input, which involves exposing learners to language more advanced than what they know now and facilitates natural acquisition through context and usage (Jegerski, 2020: 318). Many researchers have revealed that learners acquire language skills automatically from immersion programs or residing in a foreign nation, which typically exposes them to authentic scenarios, dialogues, and cultural activities rather than planned language classes. The learner can acquire linguistic patterns that form their communicative competence and not be taught only grammar explicitly.
An implicit approach makes Language learning possible, dependent on immersive environments and exposure. Learners can benefit more from immersion programs in which they are constantly surrounded by a language they want to master (Jegerski, 2020 319). For example, language camps, exchange programs, and residing in a foreign country where the required language is dominant provide numerous settings for natural language use. Within the settings, learners get involved in discussions, listen to mother tongues, and join different tasks in daily activities that reinforce their language competency (Jegerski, 2020: 319). Such learners are best served by exposure to the language used in different ways of life, enabling them to remember vocabularies, idioms, and cultures as their competence in language increases.
Many examples of language learning through implicit procedures are successful. For instance, look at what life would be like for expats or people from other places with distinct languages compared to their mother tongues. Over time, most of them learn to handle the unfamiliar tongue because of their constant exposure (Araki, 2020: 3). Cases of children in such multilingual settings successfully learning two languages without formal grammar instructions prove the point. In their daily lives, they are exposed to different languages, which helps them become good speakers without being taught how to do it naturally. Thus, the instances prove that the implicit approach works best for learning a language in different situations.
Arguments for Explicit Teaching
Different types of formal, explicit grammar instructions hold crucial significance in schools and colleges for several valid reasons. It gives a systemic approach that enables the learners to understand the rules and principles that govern a language. The educator helps students to systematically understand how language works by expressly teaching grammar (Frøisland et al., 2023). The students are formally instructed to build a solid ground for the language and express themselves clearly. First, grammar becomes explicit when taught in the institution, giving learners one uniform perception of the language used in the academic and work environments.
Much empirical research supports the use of conscious grammar instruction in second-language education. Studies done on language education by, for example, Diane Larsen-Freeman insist that explicit teaching increases the accuracy of learners’ grammar and general proficiency in second languages (Frøisland et al., 2023). Explicit grammar teaching studies involving focused grammar lessons, grammar exercises, and explanations of language rules have effectively improved comprehension of grammatical structures (Frøisland et al., 2023). The methods give learners explicit instructions, practice activities, and feedback that significantly improve their ability to understand and produce grammatical sentences in the target language.
Explicit instruction is essential when confronted with complex grammar rules that would not be deduced using implicit teaching. Grammar in languages is very complex and cannot be understood only through exposure to a language (Calder et al., 2020: 299). Through explicit teaching, the intricacies of grammar are simplified with clearly explained breakdowns, followed by specially designed exercises to target the complex facets of grammar. Taking language as an example, explicit instruction aids children in understanding the rule of complicated verb conjugation or irregular grammar (Calder et al., 2020: 299). Such a target approach helps learners overcome obstacles and assimilate complex elements of the language better than through implicit learning.
Many specific cases have successfully implemented the explicit teaching method in language education. Consider programs on grammar aimed at teaching students about grammar rules, sentence formations, and even different words and their meanings, which involve lessons. Several programs, including intensive grammar courses and specific language classes, usually enhance learners’ language competency considerably (Yaghoubi & Aghagolzadeh, 2022: 2). Moreover, analysis of standardized language proficiency test scores – TOEFL and IELTS – shows that students receiving explicit grammar instruction perform better in grammar-related components than those who rely exclusively on implicit learning (Yaghoubi & Aghagolzadeh, 2022: 2). Also, people have shown better language ability if they learn grammatical texts or online courses involving explicit instructions and questions. It demonstrates the effectiveness of using explicit approaches in improving language learning achievements.
Discussion
Through implicit and explicit means, the language teaching approach possesses different advantages and disadvantages. The implicit teaching approaches effectively mimic the natural language learning process. It uses immersion and exposure, which enables learners to acquire communicative competence and fluency similar to that of a native speaker (Thomas & Rose, 2019: 249). Nevertheless, the process may need help to clearly understand grammar laws, thus missing out on intricate linguistic details. However, it should be differentiated from overt teaching approaches, which lay a framework for learning grammar, rules, or vocabulary. The technique makes the process transparent. Still, it may encourage rote memorization and minimize attention toward developing pragmatic and communicative competencies for successful communication with peers and teachers.
Hence, a mixture of the two approaches provides the most efficient opportunity for language learning. When combined, such means will enhance the effectiveness of each, thereby enabling learners to benefit from both aspects. Natural language acquisition through implicit methods allows for genuine communication within real-life scenarios (Thomas & Rose, 2019: 249). Secondly, explicit approaches give the required guidelines on grammar rules and the details about the language. The combined approach overcomes the shortcomings of both methods, thus filling out the knowledge gaps that can be left behind using a single approach (Thomas & Rose, 2019: 250). Learners can understand complex grammar rules, practice them, and communicate in real-life settings.
Combining implicit and explicit methods results in a comprehensive approach to learning languages. Learners acquire a broad basis for developing complete language skills through exposure to authenticated language-based activities and accompanied grammatical instruction (Miyamoto et al., 2020: 443). For example, communicative activities, group discussions, and language games should also be included along with explicit grammar lessons in language classrooms so that learners can use their knowledge in practical circumstances. The approach develops a student’s comprehension of grammar and empowers them to speak freely and naturally in the target language.
There are also difficulties in harmonizing implicit and explicit approaches. Educational practitioners need help to strike an optimal balance between such approaches when developing a curriculum (Miyamoto et al., 2020: 444). The different approaches may suit some learners more than others, and therefore, the learners would require a tailored approach considering their learning styles. Besides, balancing two methods could be hectic in classrooms, especially with limited budgets where educators should be trained on multiple approaches.
While in the world of second language learning, an integrative technique comprising implicit and explicit language acquisition must be considered. Combining immersion, exposure, and application with structured grammar instruction fosters fluency and accuracy in language performance. Balanced learning, therefore, must be carefully planned for as it calls for flexibility when dealing with different learning styles, which also takes care of personal learner differences. By incorporating the integrated system, educators can cultivate an educational environment where different learners learn through their varying learning styles with a better command of the taught language.
Conclusion
Critical aspects of language acquisition are discussed in connection with controversy regarding acceptable implicit and explicit language learning approaches. For instance, implicit practices such as naturalistic learning (becoming automatic in a foreign language through extensive exposure) encourage native and fluent second-language speaking. The approach allows the students to plunge into a linguistic environment involving numerous language features. However, explicit teaching methods entail systematically ordered vocabularies and syntax based on clearly prepared lessons. It makes it easier for learners to understand the complexity of a particular language by applying what they get from their study period to grammar problems. However, at the center of this discussion is using a bilingual approach to learning, combining implicit and explicit teaching techniques. They give learners maximum returns when integrated. The implicit approach helps people build native speaker competence connected with improved performance in producing and understanding speech.
On the other hand, explicit instruction is vital in comprehending grammar rules as it forms the basis for mastering the language. By combining the three processes, students can benefit from each one. The holistic approach is helpful for learners since they are encouraged to learn through their mother tongues and grammar simultaneously.
I recommend a mixed strategy of implicit and explicit language learning models. However, a successful combination of these approaches forms a good balance necessary for effective language education with more all-inclusive results. Such a balanced approach ensures that the natural acquisition of language works well in tandem with formal awareness of the linguistic components. The strengths of each approach can be applied with an even blend of implicit and explicit methodologies. The integrated approach considers different types of learners with distinct learning styles. Apart from fostering fluency, it also enhances accuracy in the second language. The approach brings together learners who naturally undergo language acquisition processes, resulting in communicative competence and fluency.
On the other hand, explicit instruction has structural characteristics that make a learner understand grammar rules and language structures. As a result, it results in the complete integration of natural tongue fluency and comprehensive linguistic nuances to realize total learners-oriented language development. Implicit techniques utilize spontaneous natural language understanding processes; explicit ones are vital. The approaches enable learners to understand language fluency and grammar rules, leading to holistic language proficiency. Henceforth, a coherent juxtaposition of implicit and explicit teaching methods is the superior approach towards language education, bestowing learners with communicative proficiency coupled with a robust comprehension of linguistic structure.
References
Araki, Naoki. “Chomsky’s implicit assumption.” Bull. Hiroshima Inst. Tech. Research Vol 54 (2020): 1–8.
Calder, Samuel D., Mary Claessen, Susan Ebbels, and Suze Leitão. “Explicit grammar intervention in young school-aged children with developmental language disorder: An efficacy study using single-case experimental design.” Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 51, no. 2 (2020): 298-316. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_LSHSS-19-00060
Frøisland, Frøis O., Stian G. Fossumstuen, and Raees Calafato. “Explicit grammar instruction in the EFL classroom: studying the impact of age and gender.” International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 0 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2023-0057
Jegerski, Jill. “Krashen and second language processing.” Foreign Language Annals 54, no. 2 (2021): 318–323.
Miyamoto, Yohsuke R., Shengxin Wang, and Maurice A. Smith. “Implicit adaptation compensates for erratic explicit strategy in human motor learning.” Nature Neuroscience 23, no. 3 (2020): 443–455. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-020-0600-3
Thomas, Nathan, and Heath Rose. “Do language learning strategies need to be self-directed? Disentangling strategies from self-regulated learning.” Tesol Quarterly 53, no. 1 (2019): 248–257.
Yaghoubi, Rouhollah, and Ferdows Aghagolzadeh. “Mood Grammatical Metaphors in Listening Module of TOEFL Books: A Systemic Functional Grammar approach.” Journal of Linguistics & Khorasan Dialects 14, no. 3 (2022): 1-26.
write