Introduction
Human cognition is heavily influenced by language acquisition, where children pick up their native language naturally through immersion, interaction, and assimilation. However, structured grammar training and explicit methods are commonly used in adult language learning. The contrast between acquiring a first language naturally and the method of teaching a second language highlights a major divergence. This essay addresses the efficiency of direct grammar instruction in language learning. It centers the focus on the thesis statement of an academic paper, which deals with the debate of whether formal grammar instruction is required or not, despite the plentiful evidence showing natural language acquisition during the first stage of learning. This paper presents a sophisticated position by emphasizing the need for a collaborative approach that incorporates both explicit, which is defined as conscious awareness, purposeful cognition, and explicit problem-solving and implicit cognitive processes that use automatic mental operations and learned connections without conscious knowledge or control, accepting a degree of truth in the power of explicit cognitive processes, especially in formal and academic settings.
Background
People learn a language without being told or taught how to do it. It is called unconscious language training. It uses realistic events to show how the language is used in the real world. Immersion is a must for learning without being aware of it. One can do this by living where people speak the language or by doing things that require you to talk to others. Watching, copying, and interacting with others helps students naturally understand language patterns, feelings, and details. Explicit language education, on the other hand, focuses on giving clear explanations of grammar, vocabulary, and the way languages work. It is easy to understand and well put together. Grammar, syntax, and words are taught clearly to help students learn language skills. Language standards are planned and taught in schools with the help of the teacher’s textbooks, assignments, and explanations.
Implicit language training encourages interaction and practice in the real world to improve language skills. Children learn speaking patterns with the help of cues in their environment[1]. On the other hand, explicit language training stresses teaching grammar, rules, and spelling in a way that is organized and makes sense. To understand the difference in language training, you must know the difference between explicit and unspoken language teaching methods. Implicit learning is a lot like how people learn their first language quickly. While that explains the implicit approach, direct instruction matches up with organized learning methods, which lets us look into how they help people learn languages. The fact that children can learn a first language shows that the brain can learn and understand complex language systems without being explicitly trained to do so. Speech and developmental psychologists have found that children learn their mother language without being taught it. When immersed in it, children can learn a language from their caretakers, peers, and environment. They pick up patterns, syntax and vocabulary independently, and interaction helps them improve.
Unlike learning their first language, most people learn a second language by following precise and planned steps. Even though there is proof that first and second languages are the same, clear grammar is often taught when learning a second language. Structured lessons on grammar rules, word lists, and sentence patterns are common in official settings. Research shows that learning a first language and a second language use implicit learning processes and the importance of appropriate context[2]. It is why schools often teach second languages directly. Since explicit grammar instruction differs from how people learn their first language, its usefulness could be better.
Grammar is a subject taught in schools, especially in colleges and universities. Transparent ways of teaching are popular because education has fundamental issues gaining popularity. The systematic pattern of teaching clear grammar is similar to how students are taught and graded in school. Universities like learning results that can be measured. The outcomes are easy to achieve with explicit instruction. Grammar rules and language structures are taught and graded with the help of clear directions, required reading, and challenging tests. Children learn languages naturally, and there may be some similarities between first and second languages. However, formal education systems need teachers to use planned methods. Even though research shows that implicit learning methods are better for learning languages, explicit grammar education is still used because it is organized and people think it works. Since precise teaching methods are often used, we can examine why and how they help people learn a second language. It means people must think carefully about whether how they teach grammar now matches what we know about how people learn languages and whether a more balanced method might help them understand better.
Argument For
Language learning takes place naturally when students are exposed to different languages. This is different from explicit teaching of rules and structures. Learning a language implicitly is similar to the process of first-language acquisition, and it involves immersion and exposure. Learners are encouraged to derive a feel for syntax and lexis in use by means of implied language teaching. Supporters hold the view that this method facilitates genuine language learning because it relies on an inherent skill individuals possess to adopt communicative habits unconsciously. Through exposure to genuine language settings called implicit teaching, learners attain more proficient and automatic use of the language, making them better communicators in an open environment. Also, this approach corresponds with natural language development for maximum impact.
Also, Explicit and implicit approaches are being debated regarding second language acquisition. Although children take on their native tongue with ease without any formal instructions, second language learning may prove to be a different case. Many schools still insist on explicit grammar teaching despite evidence showing that one could acquire a second language implicitly[3]. We look closer at the importance of transparent language learning within L2 acquisition.
Learners are taught well because they need a clear outline of their expectations. Students comprehensively understand grammatical structures and language patterns by offering clear rules, explanations, and examples . The clarity assists the learners in understanding the basic rules of the language that can be applied in diverse situations. Such clear-cut instructions enhance learning speed, especially in linguistics, where you may have to decipher complex language elements that could be more easily understandable through implicit exposure alone. Also, explicit language teaching helps check and correct errors and attain accuracy. It makes it possible to mark out grammar points and subtle subtleties in the vocabulary so learners can identify and fix their mistakes more efficiently[4]. The clear focus on correctness fosters precision in language use, minimizing misunderstandings and enhancing communication skills. With direct instruction in a class, a teacher can determine where children may have problems talking and assist accordingly.
Furthermore, explicit language teaching helps learners bridge the difference between the first and second languages. By comparing and contrasting grammar rules and linguistic structures, learners can draw parallels between their native and second languages[5]. The comparative approach helps to understand how different and alike the languages are, thus easing the transition process and comprehending the other language’s complexity. Multiple advantages of concentrating on explicit grammar teaching in L2 can be noted. The structured approach of explicit learning provides learners with a foundation for error correction. It facilitates a comparative understanding between languages. The concern for direct language instruction remains significant in many educational institutions.
Argument Against
The best approach to teaching in the context of second language learning persists in the landscape of second language acquisition. Numerous research studies indicate that children can speak fluently in their mother tongue without educational support. Similarly, there is evidence that it is possible to acquire another language spontaneously without being taught grammar[6]. This notwithstanding, most learning institutions insist on clear grammar rules in the teaching of languages. Why, then, is the prevalent emphasis on explicit language instruction?
Firstly, explicit language learning imitates the natural process in which humans pick up their languages. Likewise, adults exposed to a second language in real-life situations are likely to learn it just as children do their mother tongue. Immersion experience, like staying in an environment whose native language is the target, allows learners to effortlessly copy grammar, vocabulary, idioms, and expressions as a listener naturally picks them. The method fosters an inherent and situational comprehension of the language. Also, hidden language acquisition supports interaction over precision. The main thing about language is its communicative value, and the overwhelming emphasis on explicit grammar rules may hamper the fluidity of articulation and expression[7]. Excessive focus on the correct use of grammar may cause learners to develop fear and, hence, refrain from participating fully in conversations. Interruptive communication skills are prioritized by comparative and interaction, boosting confidence in communicating one’s thoughts and ideas through imperfect grammar.
In addition, implicit language learning can accommodate different learning styles than explicit language acquisition. People understand languages in diverse fashions. Therefore, for others who can hardly stand by the strict order of a structured, clear grammar lesson, the experiential learning method can be a preferred option. The comparative learning approach addresses the diverse learning styles catering to the tastes of each learner by giving them a chance to explore the language themselves. In most cases, explicit grammar instruction dominates modern educational environments. However, some researchers suggest that implicit language learning is more efficient. These can serve as persuasive reasons to revise the overuse of explicit grammar teaching in second language acquisition.
Discussion
There is still a heated argument involving the use of explicit and implicit languages, especially during the second language learning process. The fact that children learn their first language almost instinctively without any formal grammatical teaching is generally recognized. Recent research also indicates that even the natural acquisition of a foreign language does not necessarily require the explicit use of grammar rules[8]. Nonetheless, many notes can be made despite this, as institutions always emphasize the explicit teaching of grammar. As such, this brings us to the debate about whether making form clear grammar teaching a priority is necessary. Like learning a native language unconsciously in an environment immersed in language, context, and exposure, implicit language teaching is based on this phenomenon. Implicit learning suggest that this procedure makes the language’s tones easier to understand. Impressionable moments comprise living and practising within language-heavy surroundings, conducting discussions, and other similar instances that enable one to unconsciously retain vocabulary, grammar patterns, and idioms . It advocates a more relaxed, expressive, and functional approach to understanding English.
However, in explicit language teaching, there is a sequence of structured instructions that indicate grammar rules, syntax, and vocabulary[9]. Proponents of clear teaching claim that it gives an orderly knowledge of language elements so that learning mistakes can be eliminated quickly and correctness in language use assured. The explicit instruction approach includes grammar lessons and exercises whereby students acquire a strong base for understanding the structure of the language. It may be advantageous, especially in academic and formal situations. However, the need for a specific emphasis on formal, explicit grammar learning must still be investigated. Direct teaching is well-structured and may suit some settings. As such, one may question its exclusiveness in most educational setups[10]. It can be achieved by balancing explicit teacher-led instruction with more implicit and immersive learning experiences that accommodate a range of individual learning styles and focus on accurate yet fluent communication skills. Formal, explicit grammatical instruction is essential in language learning. Although clear teaching provides the basis of the system, adopting an implicit approach could be much more natural and situationally relevant. A blended approach combining explicit and implicit methods could provide a more holistic and flexible language learning environment, reflecting learners’ diverse requirements and choices.
Conclusion
The dialogue surrounding language teaching techniques continues with implicit versus explicit approaches. As children learn to speak their first language, it is evident and supports the claim that acquiring a 2nd language can be enhanced through incidental and implied exposure. Nevertheless, with that evidence, formal, explicit grammar teaching is fundamental in most education settings. Whether extreme reliance on precise language teaching approaches is necessary arises. Language learning, by implication, is similar to learning the mother tongue, which concentrates on immersion and exposure to a foreign language. Supporters of the proposed method contend that natural understanding prevails through developing communication skills instead of mere attention towards grammatical rules. However, explicit language teaching offers a systematized set of guidelines that are easily comprehended by the learners’ regarding the complexity of the grammar for correct usage.
A different opinion arises on the need for formative grammar emphasis. Although explicit teaching provides systemic instruction, some learners’ needs will likely be missed. A more complete solution would be achieved by adopting an inclusive approach that combines explicit and implicit strategies. Such an integration would be flexible to accommodate different learning methods by providing a solid framework for spontaneously developing skills in natural language via interactive activities. The issue of whether explicit grammar instruction should be included in language learning is very complicated. Implicit and explicit teaching approaches have different advantages. Hence, an integrated, flexible way could be the solution. Educators can use their strengths to enhance learners’ tastes to encourage language acquisition based on accuracy and fluency.
References List
Areaya, Solomon, Daniel Tefera, Belay Tefera, and Demis Zergaw. “Psychology of Language Acquisition in Young Children and Implications for Language Education Policy Making.” Eastern Africa Social Science Research Review 38, no. 1 (2022): 6–37. https://doi.org/10.1353/eas.2022.0000.
Brevik, Lisbeth M. “Explicit Reading Strategy Instruction or Daily Use of Strategies? Studying the Teaching of Reading Comprehension through Naturalistic Classroom Observation in English L2.” Reading and Writing 32, no. 9 (May 7, 2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09951-w.
Chen, Ching‐Huei, Hsiu‐Ting Hung, and Hui‐Chin Yeh. “Virtual Reality in Problem‐Based Learning Contexts: Effects on the Problem‐Solving Performance, Vocabulary Acquisition and Motivation of English Language Learners.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 37, no. 3 (February 8, 2021): 851–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12528.
Hawthorne, Benjamin. S., Dianne. A. Vella-Brodrick, and John Hattie. “Well-Being as a Cognitive Load Reducing Agent: A Review of the Literature.” Frontiers in Education 4, no. 121 (October 23, 2019). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00121.
Loewen, Shawn, and Masatoshi Sato. “Interaction and Instructed Second Language Acquisition.” ResearchGate. Cambridge University Press, July 2018. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325629431_Interaction_and_instructed_second_language_acquisition.
Stratton, James M. “Implicit and Explicit Instruction in the Second Language Classroom: A Study of Learner Preferences in Higher Education.” Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 56, no. 2 (September 1, 2023): 103–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/tger.12263.
Sybren Spit et al., “The Effect of Explicit Instruction on Implicit and Explicit Linguistic Knowledge in Kindergartners,” Language Learning and Development, August 4, 2021, 1–28, https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2021.1941968
Tomasz Niestorowicz, and Polskie Towarzystwo Logopedyczne. “Explicit and Implicit Knowledge in Acquiring Grammatical Competence in the Process of Second Language…” ResearchGate. unknown, June 15, 2018. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346929282_Explicit_and_Implicit_Knowledge_in_Acquiring_Grammatical_Competence_in_the_Process_of_Second_Language_Acquisition.
VanPatten, Bill , and Megan Smith. “Review: Cambridge Elements – Explicit and Implicit Learning in Second Language Acquisition – Bill VanPatten and Megan Smith.” SPONGE ELT, July 25, 2022. https://spongeelt.org/2022/07/25/review-cambridge-elements-explicit-and-implicit-learning-in-second-language-acquisition-bill-vanpatten-and-megan-smith/.
Wang, Fan. “Implicit Learning and Its Application in Foreign Language Learning.” ResearchGate. unknown, 2020. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347093542_Implicit_Learning_and_Its_Application_in_Foreign_Language_Learning.
[1] Wang, Fan. “Implicit Learning and Its Application in Foreign Language Learning.” ResearchGate. unknown, 2020. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347093542_Implicit_Learning_and_Its_Application_in_Foreign_Language_Learning.
[2] Benjamin. S. Hawthorne, Dianne. A. Vella-Brodrick, and John Hattie, “Well-Being as a Cognitive Load Reducing Agent: A Review of the Literature,” Frontiers in Education 4, no. 121 (October 23, 2019), https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00121.
[3] VanPatten, Bill , and Megan Smith. “Review: Cambridge Elements – Explicit and Implicit Learning in Second Language Acquisition – Bill VanPatten and Megan Smith.” SPONGE ELT, July 25, 2022. https://spongeelt.org/2022/07/25/review-cambridge-elements-explicit-and-implicit-learning-in-second-language-acquisition-bill-vanpatten-and-megan-smith/.
[4] Solomon Areaya et al., “Psychology of Language Acquisition in Young Children and Implications for Language Education Policy Making,” Eastern Africa Social Science Research Review 38, no. 1 (2022): 6–37, https://doi.org/10.1353/eas.2022.0000.
[5] Lisbeth M. Brevik, “Explicit Reading Strategy Instruction or Daily Use of Strategies? Studying the Teaching of Reading Comprehension through Naturalistic Classroom Observation in English L2,” Reading and Writing 32, no. 9 (May 7, 2019), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09951-w.
[6] James M Stratton, “Implicit and Explicit Instruction in the Second Language Classroom: A Study of Learner Preferences in Higher Education,” Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 56, no. 2 (September 1, 2023): 103–17, https://doi.org/10.1111/tger.12263.
[7] Loewen, Shawn, and Masatoshi Sato. “Interaction and Instructed Second Language Acquisition.” ResearchGate. Cambridge University Press, July 2018. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325629431_Interaction_and_instructed_second_language_acquisition.
[8] Tomasz Niestorowicz, and Polskie Towarzystwo Logopedyczne. “Explicit and Implicit Knowledge in Acquiring Grammatical Competence in the Process of Second Language…” ResearchGate. unknown, June 15, 2018. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346929282_Explicit_and_Implicit_Knowledge_in_Acquiring_Grammatical_Competence_in_the_Process_of_Second_Language_Acquisition.
[9] Sybren Spit et al., “The Effect of Explicit Instruction on Implicit and Explicit Linguistic Knowledge in Kindergartners,” Language Learning and Development, August 4, 2021, 1–28, https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2021.1941968.
[10] Ching‐Huei Chen, Hsiu‐Ting Hung, and Hui‐Chin Yeh, “Virtual Reality in Problem‐Based Learning Contexts: Effects on the Problem‐Solving Performance, Vocabulary Acquisition and Motivation of English Language Learners,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 37, no. 3 (February 8, 2021): 851–60, https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12528.
write