The Effects of Explicit and Deductive English Grammar Instruction on the Grammatical Language Skills of Dutch Secondary School Pupils MA thesis English Language and Culture: Communication and Education, Utrecht University Name: Manon van Beelen Student Number: 3650804 Supervisor: Dr. Roselinde Supheert Second reader: Prof. Dr. Rick de Graaff Completed on: 10 July 2014 2 Table of Contents Introduction 4 Chapter 1: Theoretical Framework 6 1.1 The Interface Debate 6 1.2 Factors Influencing the Internalisation of Language Structures 10 1.3 Grammar Education 16 1.4 Earlier Research 20 1.5 Summary 23 1.6 This Study and Hypotheses 24 Chapter 2: Method 27 2.1 Subjects 27 2.2 Materials 29 2.3 Procedure 31 Chapter 3: Results 35 3.1 Comparison of Grammaticality Judgement Test, Gap Filling Task, and Controlled Production Test 35 3.2 Grammaticality Judgement Test 37 3.3 Gap Filling Task 40 3.4 Controlled Production Test 44 3.5 Main Findings 47 Chapter 4: Discussion 50 4.1 Comparison of Grammaticality Judgement Test, Gap Filling Task, and Controlled Production Test 50 4.2 Results of Grammaticality Judgement Test, Gap Filling Task, and Controlled Production Test Set against the Language Input Pupils Receive 51 3 4.3 Results of Grammaticality Judgement Test, Gap Filling Task, and Controlled Production Test Set against the Pupils’ Attitudes towards English 54 4.4 Implications for the Teaching Practice 55 Conclusion 59 Works Cited 62 Appendices 64 Appendix A: Grammaticality Judgement Test 64 Appendix B: Gap Filling Task 66 Appendix C: Controlled Production Test 68 Appendix D: Questionnaire 70 Appendix E: Pages from New Interface 72 4 Introduction Grammar education has become a controversial issue within foreign language education. Should pupils learn grammar rules by heart or do they learn grammatical constructions unconsciously by using and by being exposed to the target language frequently? In the context of this discussion, explicit and implicit language knowledge should be distinguished; whereas explicit knowledge denotes declarative and conscious knowledge about a second language, implicit knowledge can be defined as procedural or acquired knowledge (Hulstijn 130-131). The question then remains whether explicit knowledge can turn into implicit knowledge. The so-called interface debate addresses this issue extensively, and three different views can be distinguished; the non-interface position, the weak interface position, and the strong interface position. Whereas the weak and strong interface position suggest that explicit knowledge can indeed turn into implicit knowledge, the non-interface position proposes the exact opposite (Andringa 7; Han & Finneran 2). As the interface debate focuses on the relationship between explicit and implicit knowledge, it also sheds more light on the role of explicit language instruction in the acquisition of a second language in a formal setting. The question then remains whether grammar instruction can be valuable to second language development. Ellis and Andringa address this issue extensively. Both researchers state that explicit grammar instruction can be valuable to second language development, but at the same time, it is not more effective than implicit grammar instruction (Andringa 202-209; Ellis, Form- focused Instruction 233). Both during explicit and implicit grammar instruction L2 learners receive grammar lessons. However, whereas explicit grammar instruction focuses on form and the explanation of grammar rules, implicit grammar instruction focuses on meaning. Although explicit grammar instruction is not more effective than implicit grammar instruction, Andringa states that this does not mean that explicit grammar instruction should be banished from foreign language teaching, as it does provide pupils with more intensive 5 language input (202-209). Unfortunately, not much research has been conducted with regard to the relationship between explicit grammar instruction and the acquisition of implicit L2 knowledge, especially when it comes to young secondary school pupils learning a second language. The purpose of this study is to investigate the extent to which Dutch secondary school pupils in a 3 havo/vwo class (one of the highest education levels in the Netherlands) have internalised certain grammatical features after at least three years of explicit language instruction. In addition, this study also aims to investigate whether pupils perform better on grammar tasks when they receive more language input, and when they have a more positive attitude towards (learning) the English language. Three different types of grammar tasks and a questionnaire will be used in this study to investigate these issues. The results of this study may help to identify implications for the English foreign language classroom with regard to grammar education. 6 Chapter 1: Theoretical Framework 1.1 The Interface Debate In the history of second language acquisition (SLA) research, there has been much debate about the relationship between explicit and implicit knowledge. According to Hulstijn, explicit knowledge denotes declarative, conscious knowledge about a second language. The use of explicit knowledge is therefore often intentional and effortful. Implicit knowledge, on the other hand, can be defined as procedural or acquired knowledge, which enables the language learner to use the second language properly in spontaneous situations. Consequently, the use of implicit knowledge, can be seen as automatic and effortless (Hulstijn 130-131). Three different views can be distinguished when it comes to the relationship between explicit and implicit knowledge, which is often referred to as The Interface Debate (Andringa 7; Han & Finneran 2). As this debate focuses on the connection, or even overlap, between these two types of knowledge, it also sheds more light on the role of explicit knowledge in the acquisition of a second language in a formal setting. The three positions within this debate are (1) the non-interface position, (2) the weak interface position, and (3) the strong interface position, and will be described below (Andringa 2). 1.1.1. The Non-interface Position The non-interface position is strongly associated with Krashen’s view on second language acquisition. This position posits that there is no relationship between explicit and implicit knowledge (Andringa 9; Han & Finneran 4). Krashen draws a distinction between acquiring and learning a language; the acquisition of a language is a subconscious process that leads to implicit knowledge, whereas learning a language is a conscious process resulting in explicit knowledge (Krashen, Principles 10). Furthermore, there is a predictable order in which the 7 grammatical structures of a language are acquired. However, this “natural order” (Krashen, Principles 12) only appears under certain conditions. First of all, the input has to be comprehensible, and it has to fit the language learner’s current level of competence. More specifically, if a learner’s current level of competence is i, a necessary condition for acquisition to take place is that the learner must receive input containing i + 1 qualities (Krashen, Principles 20-21). Secondly, affective factors relate to the SLA process as well. Three affective variables influence the success of second language acquisition: (1) motivation; language learners who are highly motivated, do better in SLA. (2) self-confidence; language learners with self-confidence and a good self-image tend to perform better in SLA. (3) anxiety; low anxiety leads to better performance in SLA. Language learners who have a high or strong affective filter will tend to seek less input, and even if they understand the message, the input will not reach the part of the brain which is responsible for language acquisition. On the other hand, those who have a low or weak affective filter will seek and obtain more input (Krashen, Principles 30-31). In short, Krashen’s fundamental principle in SLA can be summarised as follows: “people acquire second languages only if they obtain comprehensible input and if their affective filters are low enough to allow the input ʻin’” (Krashen, Input 4). Nevertheless, Krashen does acknowledge that explicit knowledge obtained via learning may be advantageous. First of all, produced utterances in the L2 do not only come from acquired competence, but also from conscious, explicit knowledge. This knowledge serves as an editor and “changes the output of the acquired system before we speak or write” (Krashen, Input 2). As a result, more grammatical accuracy is accomplished (Krashen, Input 1-2). Secondly, teaching grammatical structures might also be advantageous to the learner’s affective filters. For instance, once learners have more knowledge of the structure of a 8 language, this could positively influence their self-confidence, which would then result in a low affective filter. Finally, teaching grammatical structures may also help to make the input language learners receive more comprehensible, which will consequently stimulate the acquisition process. For instance, once a language learner has received grammar instruction on a particular subject, the L2 learner will recognise these learned structures in the L2 input, which may make the input more comprehensible (Andringa 10). 1.1.2 The Weak Interface Position The weak interface position is found in Ellis’s view on second language acquisition, and states that implicit and explicit knowledge are two separate systems, but that it is possible for explicit knowledge to turn