An Investigation of the Role of Explicit and Implicit Instruction in Second Language Acquisition: A Case of English Embedded Question

Manoochehr Jafarigohar, Fatemeh Hemmati, Hassan Soleimani, Mehri Jalali


The present study examined the facilitative effects of three types of input-based (explicit and implicit) instruction on the intake and acquisition of the English embedded questions. The participants were 105 Iranian EFL learners from four intact classes who were randomly assigned to three treatment groups of processing instruction (PI), consciousness-raising tasks (C-R), textual input enhancement (TE), and one control group (CO). A quasi-experimental design with a pretest-treatment-posttest (immediate and delayed) sequence was used. Assessment consisted of a grammar knowledge test which included interpretation and production tasks at sentence level and a timed grammaticality judgment test. The results of data analysis indicated that all treatment groups performed significantly better than the control group on the interpretation tests over time and the treatments were also effective in improving the intake of the target structure measured through grammaticality judgment test. Moreover, all types of instruction were effective in improving the learners’ production tests except the TE. Since PI was superior to other groups in all of the tests one reasonable pedagogical implication is that explicit instruction is a more effective technique in helping EFL learners to acquire target grammatical forms.


Consciousness-raising tasks, Processing instruction, Sentence location principle, Textual input enhancement

Full Text:



Abdolmanafi, S. J. (2010). Effects of focus on form on the learning of relative clauses in an EFL context. MJAL, 2,


Alanen, R. (1995). Input enhancement and rule presentation in second language acquisition. In R. Schmidt (Ed.),

Attention and awareness in foreign language acquisition (pp. 259-302). Honolulu: University of Hawaii.

Allen, A. (2000). Form-meaning connections and the French causative: An experiment in input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 69–84.

Amirian, M., & Sadeghi, F. (2012). The effect of grammar consciousness-raising tasks on EFL learners performance. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(3), 708–720.

Benati, A. (2001). A comparative study of the effects of processing instruction and output based instruction on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. Language Teaching Research, 5(2), 95–127. Retrieved from

Benati, A. (2004). The effects of structured input activities and explicit information on the acquisition of the Italian future tense. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 207-226). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Benati, A. (2005). The effects of processing instruction, traditional instruction and meaning- output instruction on the acquisition of the English past simple tense. Language Teaching Research, 9, 67–93.

Cadierno, T. (1995). Formal instruction from a processing perspective: An investigation into the Spanish past tense. Modern Language Journal,79, 179–193.

Collentine, J.G. (2004). Commentary: Where PI research has been and where it should be going. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 169-181). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431–469.

Doughty, C., & Long, M. (2003). The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.

Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, N. (1993). Rules and instances in foreign language learning: Interactions of implicit and explicit knowledge. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 289–319.

Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–369.

Farley, A. (2001). Authentic processing instruction and the Spanish subjunctive. Hispania, 84, 289-299.

Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 323–351.

Fotos, S., Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 605–628.

Green, P. & Hecht, K. (1992). Implicit and explicit grammar: An empirical study. Applied Linguistics, 13, 168–84.

Henry, N., Culman, H., & VanPatten, B. (2009). More on the effects of explicit information in instructed SLA: A partial replication and a response to Fern´andez (2008). Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 559–575.

Hernandez, T. A. (2011). Re-examining the role of explicit instruction and input flood on the acquisition of Spanish discourse markers. Language Teaching Research, 15(2) 159–182.

Izumi, S. (2003). Processing difficulty in comprehension and production of relative clauses by learners of English as a second language. Language Learning, 53, 285–323.

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issus and implication. WY: Longman.

Lee, S. (2007). The effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL students’ reading comprehension and learning of passive form. Language Learning, 57, 87–118.

Lee, J., & Benati, A. (2007). Delivering processing instruction in classrooms and virtual contexts: Research and practice. London: Equinox.

Leow, R. P. (1997). The effects of input enhancement and text length on adult L2 readers

comprehension and intake in second language acquisition. Applied Language Learning, 8(2), 151–182.

Loschk-y, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Creating structure-based communication tasks for second language development. Working Papers in ESL, 2, 161–212.

McNicoll, J., & Lee, J. (2011). Collaborative consciousness-raising tasks in EAL classrooms. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(4), 127-138.

Morgan-Short, K., Sanz, C., Steinhauer, K., & Ullman, M. (2010). Second language acquisition of gender agreement in explicit and implicit training conditions: An event-related potential study. Language Learning, 60 (1), 154–193.

Neupane, M. (2009). Processing instruction: An input based approach for teaching grammar. NELTA, 3, 29-41. Retrieved from http://

Overstreet, M. (1998). Text enhancement and content familiarity: The focus of learner’s attention. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 2, 229–258.

Reinders, H., and R. Ellis. (2009). The effects of two types of positive enhanced input on intake and L2 acquisition.

In Ellis R. Loewen S. Erlam R. Philp J. Elder C. & Reinders H. (Eds.), Multilingual matters, (pp.27-41). Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters.

Robinson, P. (1997). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under implicit, incidental,

enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(3), 223–47.

Rosa, E., & O’Neill, M. (1998). Effects of stress and location on acoustic salience at the initial stages of Spanish L2

input processing. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 2, 24–52.

Salaberry, M. (1997). The role of input and output practice in second language acquisition. The Canadian Modern

Language Review, 53, 422–451.

Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). Positive evidence vs. explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback:

A computer-assisted study. Language Learning, 54, 35–78.

Scheffler, P. & Cinciała, M. (2010). Explicit grammar rules and L2 acquisition. ELT Journal 1–11. Schmidt, R.

(2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction. (pp. 3-32). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Sharwood Smith, M. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information

for the L2 learner. Second Language Research, 7, 118–132.

Simard, D. (2009). Differential effects of textual enhancement formats on intake. System, 37, 124–135. Retrieved from

Stafford, C.A., Bowden, H., & Sanz, C. (2012). Optimizing language instruction: matters of explicitness, practice,

and cue learning. Language Learning, 62(3), 741–768.

Sugiharto, P. (2006). Grammar consciousness-raising, research, theory, and application. Indonesian Journal of

English Language Teaching, 2, 140–148.

Takimoto, M. (2012). The effects of explicit feedback and form-meaning processing on the development of

pragmatic proficiency in consciousness-raising tasks. System, 34, 601–614.

Toth, P. D. (2006). Processing Instruction and a role for output in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 56,319–385.

Trahey, M., & White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and pre-emption in the second language classroom. Studies in

Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181–204.

VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

VanPatten, B. (2004). Processing instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993a). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225–243.

VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993b). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Language Acquisition,15, 225–243.

VanPatten, B., & Oikkenon, S. (1996). Explanation vs. structured input in processing instruction. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 18, 495–510.

VanPatten, B., & Uludag, O. (2011). Transfer of training and processing instruction: From input to output. System, 39, 44–53.

VanPatten, B., & Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction and the French causative: A replication. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 9-117). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wong, W. (2004). Processing instruction in French: The roles of explicit information and structured input. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 187–205). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Yip, V. (1994). Grammar consciousness-raising and learnability. In Odlin, T. (Ed.), Perspective on pedagogical grammar (pp. 132–147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2020 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.