Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-5bvrz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T09:47:10.100Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PERCEIVED LEARNING DIFFICULTY AND ACTUAL PERFORMANCE

Explicit and Implicit Knowledge of L2 English Grammar Points among Instructed Adult Learners

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2015

Luis Humberto Rodríguez Silva  and
Karen Roehr-Brackin
Luis Humberto Rodríguez Silva
Affiliation:
University of Essex, Universidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes
Karen Roehr-Brackin
Affiliation:
University of Essex
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article draws on an approach that conceptualizes L2 learning difficulty in terms of implicit and explicit knowledge. In a study with first language Mexican Spanish university-level learners (n = 30), their teachers (n = 11), and applied linguistics experts (n = 3), we investigated the relationship between (a) these groups’ difficulty judgements of 13 selected L2 English structures and (b) perceived learning difficulty and learners’ actual performance on measures of implicit and explicit knowledge. Our findings show that experts’ learning difficulty judgements did not lead to significant predictions, whereas the learners’ own difficulty rankings correlated significantly with their performance on the measure of explicit knowledge. Although correlations based on teachers’ difficulty rankings did not reach statistical significance, the judgements of this group were the only ones that showed trends toward successful prediction of learners’ performance on both the implicit and the explicit L2 measures. Thus the teachers exhibited a trend toward the best overall prediction ability.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 38 , Special Issue 2: Cognitive Perspectives on Difficulty and Complexity in SLA , June 2016 , pp. 317 - 340
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Absi, Z. (2014). Metalinguistic knowledge and speaking proficiency in Syrian university-level learners of English (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Essex.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (2005). Cognitive psychology and its implications (6th ed.). New York, NY: Worth.Google Scholar
Bayne, T., & Chalmers, D. J. (2003). What is the unity of consciousness? In Cleeremans, A. (Ed.), The unity of consciousness: Binding, integration, and dissociation (pp. 23–58). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. (1962). The prediction of success in intensive foreign language training. In Glaser, R. (Ed.), Training research and education (pp. 87–136). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. (1981). Twenty-five years of research on foreign language aptitude. In Diller, K. C. (Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude (pp. 83–118). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. (1990). Cognitive abilities in foreign language aptitude: Then and now. In Parry, T. S. & Stansfield, C. W. (Eds.), Language aptitude reconsidered (pp. 11–29). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Chalker, S. (1994). Pedagogical grammar: Principles and problems. In Bygate, M., Tonkyn, A., & Williams, E. (Eds.), Grammar and the language teacher (pp. 31–44). New York, NY: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Cleeremans, A., & Destrebecqz, A. (2005). Real rules are conscious. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(1), 19–20.Google Scholar
Collins, L., Trofimovich, P., White, J., Cardoso, W., & Horst, M. (2009). Some input on the easy/difficult grammar question: An empirical study. Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 336–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (1994). How implicit can adult second language learning be? AILA Review, 11, 83–96.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–348). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55(s1), 1–25.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2012). Interactions between individual differences, treatments, and structures in SLA [Supplemental material]. Language Learning, 62(2), 189–200.Google Scholar
Dienes, Z., & Perner, J. (2003). Unifying consciousness with explicit knowledge. In Cleeremans, A. (Ed.), The unity of consciousness: Binding, integration, and dissociation (pp. 214–232). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Diesendruck, G. (2005). “Commitment” distinguishes between rules and similarity: A developmental perspective. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(1), 21–22.Google Scholar
Dietz, G. (2002). On rule complexity: A structural approach. EuroSLA Yearbook, 2, 263–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (1994a). Consciousness in second language learning: Psychological perspectives on the role of conscious processes in vocabulary acquisition. AILA Review, 11, 37–56.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (Ed.). (1994b). Implicit and explicit learning of languages. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 305–352.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2011). Implicit and explicit SLA and their interface. In Sanz, C. & Leow, R. P. (Eds.), Implicit and explicit language learning: Conditions, processes, and knowledge in SLA and bilingualism (pp. 35–47). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54(2), 227–275.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 141–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2006). Modelling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: The differential contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 431–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philp, J., & Reinders, H. (2009). Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Erlam, R. (2006). Elicited imitation as a measure of L2 implicit knowledge: An empirical validation study. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 464–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Housen, A., Pierrard, M., & Van Daele, S. (2005). Structure complexity and the efficacy of explicit grammar instruction. In Housen, A. & Pierrard, M. (Eds.), Investigations in instructed second language acquisition (pp. 235–269). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Housen, A., & Simoens, H. (2016). Introduction to special issue. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Google Scholar
Hu, G. (2002). Psychological constraints on the utility of metalinguistic knowledge in second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(3), 347–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, W. C. (2012). Learning difficulty of pedagogical grammar in L2 English: Theory, teachers' and learners’ judgement (Unpublished master’s dissertation). University of Essex.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H. (2005). Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-language learning: Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 129–140.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H., & de Graaff, R. (1994). Under what conditions does explicit knowledge of a second language facilitate the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A research proposal. AILA Review, 11, 97–112.Google Scholar
Kay, S., & Jones, V. (2009). New American inside out: Intermediate student book. Oxford: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Markman, A. B., Blok, S., Kom, K., Larkey, L., Narvaez, L. R., Stilwell, C. H., & Taylor, E. (2005). Digging beneath rules and similarity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(1), 29–30.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2001). Does type of instruction make a difference? Substantive findings from a meta-analytic review. Language Learning, 51(1), 157–213.Google Scholar
Rebuschat, P. (2013). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge in second language research. Language Learning, 63(3), 595–626.Google Scholar
Rebuschat, P. (Ed.). (2015). Implicit and explicit learning of languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1996). Consciousness, rules, and instructed second language acquisition. New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Roehr, K. (2008a). Linguistic and metalinguistic categories in second language learning. Cognitive Linguistics, 19(1), 67–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roehr, K. (2008b). Metalinguistic knowledge and language ability in university-level L2 learners. Applied Linguistics, 29(2), 173–199.Google Scholar
Roehr, K. (2010). Explicit knowledge and learning in SLA: A cognitive linguistics perspective. AILA Review, 23, 7–29.Google Scholar
Roehr-Brackin, K. (2014). Explicit knowledge and processes from a usage-based perspective: The developmental trajectory of an instructed L2 learner. Language Learning, 64(4), 771–808.Google Scholar
Roehr, K., & Gánem-Gutiérrez, G. A. (2009). Metalinguistic knowledge: A stepping stone towards L2 proficiency? In Benati, A. (Ed.), Issues in second language proficiency (pp. 79–94). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Scheffler, P. (2009). Rule difficulty and the usefulness of instruction. ELT Journal, 63(1), 5–12.Google Scholar
Scheffler, P. (2011). Rule difficulty: Teachers’ intuitions and learners’ performance. Language Awareness, 20(3), 221–237.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shiu, L. J. (2011). EFL learners’ perceptions of grammatical difficulty in relation to second language proficiency, performance, and knowledge (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Smith, E. E. (2005). Rule and similarity as prototype concepts. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(1), 34–35.Google Scholar
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263–308.Google Scholar
Thepseenu, B., & Roehr, K. (2013). University-level learners’ beliefs about metalinguistic knowledge. In Roehr, K. & Gánem-Gutiérrez, G. A. (Eds.), The metalinguistic dimension in instructed second language learning (pp. 95–117). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Westney, P. (1994). Rules and pedagogical grammar. In Odlin, T. (Ed.), Perspectives on pedagogical grammar (pp. 72–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yalçin, S., & Spada, N. (2016). Language aptitude and grammatical difficulty in an EFL context. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.Google Scholar
Ziętek, A. A., & Roehr, K. (2011). Metalinguistic knowledge and cognitive style in Polish classroom learners of English. System, 39(4), 417–426.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Rodríguez Silva and Roehr-Brackin supplementary material S1

Online Appendix

Download Rodríguez Silva and Roehr-Brackin supplementary material S1(File)
File 29.1 KB