Home · C24
C24 alive
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.
- Status
- alive
- Last change
- 2026-10-29
- Serves
- Q1 (How do humans actually learn, and what helps them learn best?)
- Ages
- gymnasium, vuxen-livslangt
- Area
- Language learning
- Relates to
- C23 relates-to C24 (both second-language learning)
- Bounds
- Targeted grammar and other language forms in controlled studies; not general fluency or whole-programme comparisons. 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. 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. Both abstract-only so far. Known weak spot to attack: many outcome tests in these studies favour explicit knowledge.
- What would kill this
- 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. Promoted from K54 on 2026-10-29 in the bold expansion Jonatan approved after four empty attack nights (26–29 Oct): new sharp claims in thin areas, each naming a comparison, a rough size or direction and a population.
- Tutor consequence
- none yet
Attack record
No attacks yet
The ledger is empty. The claim was promoted on its first day and has not been attacked yet.
Linked sources
4 linked sources (3 supports, 1 challenges)
Supports (3)
| Source | Basis |
|---|---|
| LANG-008 · Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning: Norris & Ortega (2000) revisited and updated (2015) | Abstract: 34 unique-sample studies that compared explicit and implicit L2 instruction (11 from Norris & Ortega 2000 plus 23 published 1999–2011); overall, explicit instruction was more effective than implicit. No effect sizes in the abstract. Book chapter, closed. |
| LANG-003 · Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: A Research Synthesis and Quantitative Meta-analysis (2000) | Abstract: 49 studies; explicit > implicit; large focused-instruction gains. |
| LANG-004 · Interactions Between Type of Instruction and Type of Language Feature: A Meta-Analysis (2010) | Abstract: 41 studies; explicit > implicit for simple and complex forms, controlled and spontaneous use. |
Challenges (1)
| Source | Basis |
|---|---|
| LANG-007 · Thirty-five years of ISLA on form-focused instruction: A meta-analysis (2019 (online 11 July 2018)) | Abstract: 54 studies, 5,051 learners, 1980–2015; overall instruction g = 1.06 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.29); "a minor difference was detected between explicit and implicit instruction". Size and direction of that difference, and any delayed or free-production split, are not in the abstract. Full text closed. |
Review state: first-pass draft, pending human review.