C24 Explicit L2 teaching
alive Untested: no attacks yet · serves Q1 · last change 29 October 2026
For teenage and adult second-language learners, teaching that states the rule or points out the form produces larger gains on tests of those forms than implicit teaching that never states the rule, for simple and complex forms alike and in free use as well as in controlled tests.
Go deeper
Where it holds
All limits (5)
Inside the circle: the core of the claim. Outside: every bound and carve-out in the claim file, numbered, with the attack that forced or added it where the record shows one.
forced by a narrowing attackin the original wordingwritten at creation, or added without a narrowing
Warm cards in the list were added by later attacks; plain cards were in the original draft or written at creation.
Targeted grammar and other language forms in controlled studies; not general fluency or whole-programme comparisons.
Written when the claim was created (29 October 2026); not forced by an attack
Evidence on file: Norris & Ortega 2000 (Language Learning, DOI 10.1111/0023-8333.00136; abstract only): 49 studies; focused L2 instruction gave large gains; explicit types more effective than implicit; effects appeared durable.
Written when the claim was created (29 October 2026); not forced by an attack
Spada & Tomita 2010 (Language Learning, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.x; abstract only): 41 studies; larger effects for explicit than implicit instruction for both simple and complex features, on controlled knowledge and spontaneous use.
Written when the claim was created (29 October 2026); not forced by an attack
Both abstract-only so far.
Written when the claim was created (29 October 2026); not forced by an attack
Known weak spot to attack: many outcome tests in these studies favour explicit knowledge.
Written when the claim was created (29 October 2026); not forced by an attack
0 of 5 bounds and carve-outs were forced by a specific attack.
How it changed
There is nothing to replay yet: C24 has not been attacked, and only one wording exists, the one it was given on 29 October 2026.
For teenage and adult second-language learners, teaching that states the rule or points out the form produces larger gains on tests of those forms than implicit teaching that never states the rule, for simple and complex forms alike and in free use as well as in controlled tests.
What would change this
What would kill it: A meta-analysis of controlled L2 studies finds implicit teaching as effective as or better than explicit teaching on measures of the targeted forms, or finds the explicit advantage gone on delayed or free-production measures. Added as a claim on 29 October 2026, promoted from a candidate belief in the evidence library.
Attack record
No attacks yet. This claim is untested: its wording has not been exposed to counter-evidence in this project.
Evidence
4 linked sources: 3 supports, 1 challenges (first-pass draft, pending human review). supports: Norris & Ortega 2000, Spada & Tomita 2010, Goo et al. 2015 · challenges: Kang et al. 2019