https://www.ukessays.

com/essays/english-language/effect-of-explicit-and-implicit-vocabulary-
instruction-english-language-essay.php

 Implicit vocabulary teaching and learning method involves indirect, or incidental whereas
the explicit method involves direct, or intentional. 

 In vocabulary acquisition studies, one key research direction is to explore the points at
which implicit vocabulary learning is more efficient than explicit vocabulary learning, to ask
what are the most effective strategies of implicit learning, and to consider the implications of
research results for classroom vocabulary teaching(Carter and Nunan, 2002).

According to Celce-Murcia (2001) knowledge can be gained and represented either

implicitly or explicitly and both contribute to language learning. There exists a central debate
emerging from the studies dealt with whether effective vocabulary learning should give
attention to explicit implicit vocabulary learning.

In implicit vocabulary, learning students engage in activities that focus attention on

vocabulary. Incidental vocabulary is learning that occurs when the mind is focused
elsewhere, i.e. learning without conscious attention or awareness; such as on
understanding a text or using language for communicative purposes. From a pedagogically-
oriented perspective, the goal of explicit teaching is “to lead learner’s attention”, whereas
the aim of an implicit focus on form is “to draw learner’s attention”. Moreover, individual
tasks can be located along an explicit or implicit continuum, and complex tasks may
combine both explicit and implicit subtasks. Most researchers recognized that a well-
structured vocabulary program needs a balanced approach that includes explicit teaching
together with activities providing appropriate contexts for incidental learning.

Wang, D. (2000). Vocabulary acquisition: Implicit learning and explicit teaching.

https://repository.nie.edu.sg/bitstream/10497/3825/3/REACT-2000-2-15.pdf

The extreme implicit vocabulary learning hypothesis holds that the meaning of a new acquisition takes
place as a result of exposure to comprehensible input. The amount of reading positively correlates with
the lexical size of the readers. But it is very important to note that all but several of the studies Krashen
(1989) reviews involve native speakers rather than second language learners. In this sense, "research
that positively supports Krashen j. claims as regards second language vocabulary acquisition is still very
limited" (Coady, 1997, p. 226).

Historically, our perspective on learning vocabulary has been greatly influenced by dominant teaching
methods. The pendulum has swung from direct teaching of vocabulary under the sway of the grammar
translation method to implicit acquisition under the influence of top-down, naturalistic, and
communicative approaches, and now, laudably, back to the middle: implicit and explicit learning
(Sokmen, 1997).
Implicit learning takes place in all areas of life and it is therefore reasonable to assume that it takes place
in the realm of vocabulary learning as well (Gass, 1999). However, it is hard to thoroughly subscribe to
the extreme implicit vocabulary learning hypothesis. Since input can be made salient either by the
teacher, materials, books, and so forth, or by the students themselves, the attention focus of learners
can be shifted both externally and internally.Since input can be made salient either by the teacher,
materials, books, and so forth, or by the students themselves, the attention focus of learners can be
shifted both externally and internally. In this vein, though many authors take implicit learning as
something that is learnt without the object of that learning being the specific focus of attention in a
classroom context, the pedagogically induced attention may or may not fit in with learner attention

Learning is facilitated by such a recognisable knowledge gap created by learners themselves.

The arguments for not focussing solely on implicit learning also come from a number of potential
problems associated with inferring words from context. Acquiring vocabulary mainly through guessing
words in context is likely to be a very slow errorprone process. Students, especially those with low-level
proficiency, are often frustrated with this approach and it is difficult to undo the possible damage done
by incorrect guessing (Sokmen, 1997)

Language learners acquire the more procedural knowledge aspect of implicit learning by repeated
exposure and practice. Simple attention suffices for implicit learning mechanisms to induce regularities
in the input environment. Thus, implicit learning is a process, occurring naturally, simply, and without
much conscious operation.

To the extent that vocabulary learning is an implicit skill acquisition, it is also an explicit knowledge
acquisition process (Ellis, 1994). The tunings of the implicit learning can be guided and governed by
explicit learning and explicit learning can be consolidated and reinforced by implicit learning. Thus,
implicit learning and explicit learning are, as it were, two sides of a coin in vocabulary acquisition.

CONSCIOUSNESS IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING: PSYCHOLOGICAL PERPECTIVES ON

THE ROLE OF CONSCIOUS PROCESSES IN VOCABULARY ACQUISITION

Incidental learning (Consciousness as intentionality) should be used to refer to

describe situations where individuals learn without intent to learn, or when
individuals learn one thing when their primary objective was to do something else.
In the past this has often been referred to as unconscious learning. Schmidt adds
the rider that it is important not to assume without independent evidence that
either the process or the product of such learning is unconscious in any other
sense.

By the 1960s critics began to observe that these methods produce fluent but flawed
speakers (e.g.
"Audiolingual methods have been teaching speech but not language”, Donaldson,
1971, p. 123) and explicit instruction of grammatical rules was reintroduced in the
Cognitive Code Method, 'a modified, up-to-date translation theory' (Carroll, 1966, p.
102), which held that perception and awareness of L2 rules precede their use. In
the 1970s and 80s the pendulum swung back to Naturalistic methods (Krashen,
1982, 1985). Krashen’s underlying theory, the Input Hypothesis, is a non-interface
position in that it posits that adults can subconsciously acquire languages and
they can consciously learn about language. But in this view learning cannot be
converted into acquisition; subconscious
acquisition dominates in L2 performance, and conscious learning is used only as a
Monitor, i.e. as an editor to correct output after it has been initiated by the
acquired system. Thus in Krashen's Monitor theory implicit acquisition of L2 is the
essential aim of instructional programmes. Currently the pendulum is yet again in
swing: in the light of analyses of the disappointing abilities of graduates from
'grammar-free' foreign language (FL) programmes (Gomes da Torre, 1985) there
are new ca1ls for a return to explicit methods (Kingman + Cox Reports for English,
1988, 1989; James, 1986).
Such swings in educational practice make it clear that there is no simple
answer to the question of whether language acquisition reflects conscious or
unconscious processes. There are two major causes of this continuing contention.
The first is the 'slipperiness' of the term 'consciousness' both in its constitutive
definitions and in their operationalisations (McLaughlin, 1990; Schmidt, this
volume). The second is that 'language learning' is equally poorly defined, mainly
because of its numerous facets. Researchers really need to be clear in what they
are talking about with regard both consciousness and language, hence this symposium
whose aim is a theoretical overhaul of our concepts in effort after clarity and
standardisation.

''language is subconsciously acquired - while you are acquiring, you don't know you are
acquiring [implicit learning] your conscious focus is on the message, not form
[learning without attention]. Thus, the acquisition process is identical to what had
been termed 'incidental learning.' [incidental learning] Also acquired knowledge is
represented subconsciously in the brain - it is what Chomsky has termed 'tacit
knowledge'. [intuitive knowledge & implicit memory]" (Krashen, 1989, p. 440)

Rules and instances in foreign language learning:

Interactions of explicit and implicit knowledge
These views hold that acquired (implicit) knowledge and learnt (explicit) knowledge are
stored separately and that learnt knowledge cannot be converted into acquired knowledge

L2 teaching approaches are heavily rule-based and hold that explicit knowledge is a necessary, or at any
rate a desirable, precursor of implicit knowledge

(Radical swings in the history of L2 teaching methodologies reflect

this schism (for reviews, see R. Ellis, 1990; Kelly, 1969). Traditional
“grammar-translation’’ methods emphasised study by literacy and translation and had an explicit bias
with formal explanation of L2 rules and a
deductive approach to learning. Come the Second World War, the
Behaviourist Zeitgeist in America led to structural approaches and
audiolingual methods which outlawed the teaching of metalinguistic rules
and which regarded L2 as just another specific domain to be understood
by general laws of learning: L2 acquisition involved discrimination and
generalisation from structured examples by analogy not analysis, i.e.
implicit, inductive learning through patterned practice. By the 196Os,
critics began to observe that these methods produce fluent but flawed
speakers (e.g. “Audiolingual methods have been teaching speech but not
language”: Donaldson, 1971, p. 123) and explicit instruction of grammatical rules was reintroduced in
the Cognitive Code Method, “a modified,up-to-date translation theory” (Carroll, 19M, p. 102), which
held that perception and awareness of L2 rules precede their use. In the 1970s and 198Os, the pendulum
swung back to naturalistic methods (Krashen, 1982;1985). Krashen’s underlying theory, the input
hypothesis, is a noninterface position in that it posits that adults can subconsciously acquire languages
and they can consciously learn about language. But in this view, learning cannot be converted into
acquisition; subconscious acquisition Downloaded by [Carnegie Mellon University] at 22:32 02
February 2015

dominates in L2 performance, and conscious learning is used only as a

monitor, i.e. as an editor to correct output after it has been initiated by
the acquired system. Thus in Krashen’s Monitor Theory, implicit acquisition of L2 is the essential aim of
instructional programmes. Currently, the
pendulum is yet again in swing: in the light of analyses of the disappointing
abilities of graduates from “grammar-free” foreign language (FL) programmes (Gomes da Torre, 1985),
there are new calls for a return to
explicit methods (Cox, 1989; James, 1986; Kingman, 1988).
Such swings in educational practice make it clear that there is no simple
answer to which of these methods is “best”.) ******

Implicit Vs. Explicit Vocabulary Learning: Which Approach Serves Long-term

Recall Better? http://ejournals.ukm.my/3l/article/view/930/849
implicit vocabulary learning, also known as incidental vocabulary learning, occurs when the
mind is concentrated elsewhere, such as on comprehending a written text or understanding
spoken material. One of the premises of implicit vocabulary learning is that new words should
not be presented in isolation and should not be learnt by mere rote memorization. It follows that
new vocabulary items should be presented in contexts rich enough to provide clues to meaning
and that learners should be given multiple exposure to items they are supposed to learn (Nation
1990).

The employment of extensive reading as a means of implicit learning can facilitate to a

considerable extent the learning of the formal features of language (Welch 1997, Day &
Bamford 1998, Green 2005).
http://eltvoices.in/Volume3/Issue_6/EVI_36_11.pdf

Effects of Implicit Versus Explicit Vocabulary Instruction on Intermediate EFL

Learners’ Vocabulary Knowledge
In the realms of cognitive psychology and second language acquisition alike, the presence of awareness
serves as a primary defining feature in terms of this implicit / explicit distinction. Schmidt (2001)
elucidates in great length the role of awareness in implicit and explicit learning, the definition of the
former being “learning without awareness” whereas the latter, “learning with awareness”. The sheer
weight that Schmidt (2001) has allocated to awareness (or attention/ consciousness) is not incidental.
Winter and Reber (1994) believe that the spirit of implicit learning is mirrored in the notion that people
can under some circumstances absorb knowledge or information from the environment without
awareness of the learning process. Similar viewpoints are presented with reference to attention by
Schmidt (2000), who considers explicit learning the allocation of attention directly on the information to
be learned. Ellis (1994) also brings to the attention of the discussion on the implicit/explicit dimension
the importance of conscious operations. He specifies implicit learning as the "acquisition of knowledge
about the underlying structure of a complex stimulus environment by a process which takes place
naturally, simply and without conscious operations" (p. 1). Explicit learning, on the contrary, refers to a
more conscious operation where the individual makes and tests hypotheses in a search for structure.
Put simply, knowledge attainment may be achieved either by abstraction of the structural nature of the
stimulus via exposure to instances or by searching for information then forming and testing hypotheses
or via assimilation of given rules. This concept of hypothesis building and testing is taken up by Berry
(1994) in her definition of implicit and explicit learning and yet is viewed in somewhat different light. She
defines these two modes of learning not in terms of consciousness but of the recourse to deliberate
strategies: Learning is implicit when people learn to employ the structure of an environment without
using such analytic strategies as generating and testing hypotheses; learning may be explicit when such
deliberate strategies are used. Given that, Berry (1994) provides little elaboration on the relationship
between deliberate strategies and consciousness, it remains to be seen whether these two terms are co-
referent from her standpoint, but it has almost become conventional wisdom that consciousness has
some role to play in the discussion of the implicit – explicit dimension.

According to Ellis’ (1994) terminology, implicit learning is typically defined as acquisition of knowledge by a
process which takes place naturally, simply and without conscious operation

In the field of vocabulary acquisition, incidental learning is largely defined as the learning
of vocabulary as a by-product of any activity not explicitly geared towards vocabulary learning
(Rieder, 2003).

https://www.u-bunkyo.ac.jp/center/library/image/fsell2002_89-96.pdf

EXPLICIT VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION： USING A WORD LIST TO FOCUS ATTENTION

Implicit and explicit learning：The distinction between implicit learning and explicit learning has long
been an area ofinterest for SLA researchers and theoreticians.Implicit learning is the acquisition of
knowledge that takes place naturally, simply, and without conscious operations.Explicit learning is a
conscious operationwherein thelearnermakes and tests hypotheses about the target language (N.C. Ellis,
1994). Over the years the “pendulum”hasswung back and forth in second languageeducation
betweenmethodsthat emphasize explicit instruction and methods that favor implicit learning. The
grammartranslation method depends on explicit instruction. The audio-lingual method and more recent
“communicative”approaches posit an implicit model of second language learning. This distinction
between implicit and explicit learning forms the centerpiece ofKrashenʼs model of SLA. Krashen allows
that both explicit and implicit learning take place, but denies that there is any interface between the two
(Krashen, 1981);explicit, conscious learning cannot be converted into acquisition.Others,notablyR.Ellis
(1990)and Schmidt (1990),believethat explicit knowledgeplays an important rolein second
languageacquisition. Thedebateovertheeffectivenessofimplicit versusexplicit instructionandlearning also
applies to L2 vocabulary acquisition. Again, Krashen (1989) is a representative of the extreme implicit
position. On the other hand, Westʼs compilation of the General Service List is based on the assumption
that explicit learning has value.In addition,over thepast fifteen years researchers and methodologists
have devoted a great dealoftimeand effort tothedevelopment ofstrategiesforexplicit vocabularylearning
andinstruction.Thereare also some who find that both explicit and implicit processes take place in
vocabulary acquisition,with each playing a different role.N.C.Ellis(1994)claimsthat“therecognition ― 90
― and production aspects of vocabularylearning relyon implicit learning,but meaning and mediational
aspects of vocabularyheavilyinvolve explicit,conscious learning processes.” Thevocabularylearning
program outlined in this articleis based on a recognition ofEllisʼ insight inthat explicit andimplicit
processesareseenasbeing complementaryandareboth considered important for L2 vocabulary
acquisition