---
title: 'Implicit Learning and Input Enhancement - Long (2017) Part 2'
url: 'https://eltresearchbites-archive.englishup.me/implicit-learning-and-input-enhancement-long-2017-part-2'
markdown: 'https://eltresearchbites-archive.englishup.me/implicit-learning-and-input-enhancement-long-2017-part-2.md'
date: '2018-01-01'
description: 'Shona Whyte 2018-01-01 The second of two posts on instructed second language acquisition (ISLA) investigates this new subfield at the intersection of second language acquisition (SLA) research and language teaching (Long 2017). In the first post we focused on his definition of ISLA and how it diffe…'
---

# Implicit Learning and Input Enhancement - Long (2017) Part 2

### *Shona Whyte*

*2018-01-01*

The second of two posts on instructed second language acquisition (ISLA) investigates this new subfield at the intersection of **second language acquisition** (SLA) research and **language teaching** (Long 2017). In the [first post](https://eltresearchbites-archive.englishup.me/what-is-instructed-second-language-acquistion-isla-long-2017-part-1) we focused on his definition of ISLA and how it differs from L2 teaching and classroom research. Now we move on to the second part of the article to understand why **implicit language learning** is favoured by second language researchers and what this might mean for teachers.

**A cognitivist-interactionist theory of ISLA**

Adults learning an L2 are disadvantaged because a) **first language** learning has **tuned out** the capacity we have as newborns to learn any language (i.e., notice all kinds of phonetic contrasts or grammatical features) and b) after age 12, our **capacity for implicit learning is much reduced**. These factors **block** L2 users’ capacity to notice L2 features, creating a **learning problem**.

ISLA research aims to determine **what kind of instruction can help**. Long assumes three constraints on L2 instruction.

1. **Explicit or implicit learning alone is not sufficient**: there is too much to learn. EFL learners need to know 9K word families. Class time cannot cover this volume of vocabulary, and for incidental learning via reading a 3 million word corpus would be required, also too time-consuming.
2. **Instruction can only affect the linguistic environment**, NOT the **actual learner.** Implicit and incidental learning can occur alongside explicit knowledge gained from intentional learning. It is difficult to know what kind of learning results from instruction, although it is still possible to design tasks to encourage one type or another by focusing on language form or communicative intent.
3. **Implicit L2 learning is more important** for a functional command of L2 **than explicit learning**, and some L2 researchers do not believe that explicit knowledge can become implicit (the “non-interface position”). This is still a minority position in language teaching, and perhaps rightly so, since few learners have both time and aptitude for implicit language learning, Long acknowledges.

Long suggests three ways instruction can support L2 acquisition given these constraints. All rely on **incidental learning** plus one of the following:

1. **focus on forms** to facilitate **noticing** Teach grammar explicitly, by traditional presentation-practice-production (PPP), to make learners aware of L2 features.
2. **focus on form** to facilitate **noticing** or **detection** Include brief references to L2 features during communicative teaching to make learners *notice*, or become conscious of a feature. Later, learners may apply this learning subconsciously, that is, *detect* or learn from further examples in subsequent input.
3. **unintrusive input enhancement** to facilitate **detection** Develop unconscious awareness of L2 cues, or make L2 features salient to learners without explicit noticing, by highlighting important features like verbal morphology with bold or colour, or by associating visual and aural input.

Long argues that Condition 1 is effective only if L2 competence is tested on discrete points and without time pressure. In other words, it doesn’t produce implicit learning, and it disrupts communicative teaching. Condition 2, drawing learners' attention briefly to particular L2 features during communicative activities, also works. This has the advantage of not sabotaging communicative instruction - see [Geoff Jordan](https://web.archive.org/web/20170607025635/https://criticalelt.wordpress.com/2016/09/28/why-ppp-makes-no-sense-at-all-a-reply-to-anderson/) and [Anthony Schmidt](https://web.archive.org/web/20190328185012/http://www.anthonyteacher.com/blog/time-slay-ppp) for more on this.

Condition 3 would have even less negative impact on communicative instruction: the goal is to **to reset L1 parameters** or "unlearn" instincts derived from L1 by focusing on relevant L2 features. Cintrón-Valentín & Ellis (2015) investigated the learning of L2 Latin verbal morphology by L1 English speakers. L1-influenced reliance on *adverbial* cues blocks learners' attention to more important *verbal* morphology. The study found that highlighting morphological cues through colour coding in computer-delivered input increased attention to this salient feature and helped learners' overcome the adverbial block to improve learning. This suggests more explicit grammar teaching is not necessary.

Condition 3 can also include ways to **speed up detection of new forms** in input. Malone (2016) investigated incidental vocabulary learning through reading with and without an oral rendition. He found the bi-modal condition (reading and hearing) produced better learning. He suggests teachers recommend learners read along with audiobooks to improve incidental learning. Long claims that basic research has shown that unintrusive input enhancement works, and that controlled laboratory studies should now be undertaken.

**An ISLA research agenda**

In conclusion, Long **rejects** **explicit grammatical instruction** such as Ellis' hybrid grammatical and task syllabus, or a grammar syllabus supplemented by extensive reading, claiming they lack psycholinguistic coherence. He maintains his preference for **incidental learning** via a **communicative syllabus** with opportunities for **focus on form**, or, better, **unintrusive enhancements** to allow unconscious re-tuning of attention to L2 features and uptake of new forms.

Long sees a major goal of ISLA research as freeing instruction of unnecessary artificial aids, to identify the least intrusive but still efficient means of achieving instructional goals.

**Reaction**

I like how this article carves out a space at the intersection of second language acquisition and language teaching research. SLA research is not all relevant to language teaching, since some relates to naturalistic learning, for example, or consists in basic research without direct classroom applications. Similarly, Long shows how not all research in language teaching or L2 classrooms relates to language acquisition or development. This speaks perhaps to some of Geoff Jordan's concerns about **the sociocultural turn** in applied linguistics, and to Richard Smith's points about **teacher research**: while not denying the interest of this work, Long is clear that a) very specific pedagogical choices are best made by teachers in their own classroom contexts, and b) the context-dependent findings of research into pedagogical procedures "do not qualify as research on ISLA."

Since the article focuses on research rather than instruction, the arguments are framed around learning rather than teaching, and Long does acknowledge that SLA researchers' emphasis on "incidental and implicit L2 learning in adults" is "still a minority position in the world of language teaching" (p. 23). He argues that explicit teaching should not take the form of a grammatical syllabus, but rather focus on form, or unintrusive input enhancement. His examples are based on computer-delivered instructional materials, making the teacher at best an instructional designer. Focus on form, however, also concerns teacher behaviour in the classroom, including feedback on errors, for example. There is no mention in this article of how unintrusive input enhancements might be provided and how, or indeed whether, research into this could contribute to ISLA. Thus for the moment, it seems that ISLA remains more focused on learning than teaching, no doubt to the frustration of some readers of ELT Research Bites.

**References**

Cintrón-Valentín, M. and Ellis, N. (2015) Exploring the interface: explicit focus-on- form instruction and learned attentional biases in L2 Latin. Language Learning 37(2): 197–235. [10.1017/s0272263115000029](https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263115000029)

Long, M. (2017). Instructed second language acquisition (ISLA): geopolitics, methodological issues, and some major research questions. *ISLA*, 1(1): 7-44. [journals.equinoxpub.com](https://journals.equinoxpub.com/index.php/ISLA/article/viewFile/33314/pdf)

Malone, J. (2016) Incidental vocabulary learning in SLA: effects of frequency and aural enhancement (Qualifying Paper. PhD in SLA Program). College Park: University of Maryland.

---

## Navigation

- Previous: [Implications from Research on Writing from Reading](https://eltresearchbites-archive.englishup.me/implications-from-research-on-writing-from-reading.md)
- Next: [Improving Foreign Language Listening Skills by Reading](https://eltresearchbites-archive.englishup.me/improving-foreign-language-listening-skills-by-reading.md)